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

December 17, 1998

36th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L072A - Thu 17 Dec 1998 / Jeu 17 Déc 1998 1

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

HUMMINGBIRD PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE CORPORATION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DU CENTRE HUMMINGBIRD DES ARTS D'INTERPRÉTATION

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

HUMMINGBIRD PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE CORPORATION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DU CENTRE HUMMINGBIRD DES ARTS D'INTERPRÉTATION

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

RAMADAN

DELHI BELGIAN CLUB

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

FRONTIERS FOUNDATION

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

RIDE PROGRAM

PROPERTY TAXATION

VOLUNTEERS

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TAXPAYERS' PROTECTION FROM PAYING AL MCLEAN'S LEGAL EXPENSES ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 ÉPARGNANT AUX CONTRIBUABLES LE PAIEMENT DES FRAIS JURIDIQUES D'AL MCLEAN

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR

FRANCHISES ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES FRANCHISES

TAXPAYERS' BILL OF RIGHTS, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA DÉCLARATION DES DROITS DES CONTRIBUABLES

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA MUNICIPALITÉ RÉGIONALE DE DURHAM

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉVALUATION FONCIÈRE

DEFERRED VOTES

SUPPLY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE CRÉDITS DE 1998

ORAL QUESTIONS

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

SCHOOL CLOSURES

TEXTBOOKS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

LONG-TERM CARE

PROSTATE CANCER

TORONTO POLICE ASSOCIATION

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

SPEAKER'S RULING

VISITORS

PETITIONS

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

BEAR HUNTING

LAND USE PLANNING

PROPERTY TAXATION

CHILD CARE CENTRES

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

STEEL INDUSTRY

PALLIATIVE CARE

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

EDUCATION FUNDING

HEALTH CARE

SCHOOL CLOSURES

GASOLINE PRICES

BEAR HUNTING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT (CHILD WELFARE REFORM), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES SERVICES À L'ENFANCE ET À LA FAMILLE (RÉFORME DU BIEN-ÊTRE DE L'ENFANCE)

CONDOMINIUM ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES CONDOMINIUMS

SPEAKER'S RULING

CONDOMINIUM ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES CONDOMINIUMS (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1001.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

HUMMINGBIRD PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE CORPORATION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DU CENTRE HUMMINGBIRD DES ARTS D'INTERPRÉTATION

Mr Silipo moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 97,

An Act to establish the Hummingbird Performing Arts Centre Corporation / Projet de loi 97, Loi créant la Société du Centre Hummingbird des arts d'interprétation.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Let me say, first of all, how pleased I am to have the opportunity today to present this bill, to ask for second reading passage of it today, and I will be asking, assuming and hoping this bill passes, for it to proceed to third reading for this evening.

I want to say that I'm pleased to have had the opportunity to have worked with the good people at the Hummingbird Centre, and many of them are in the gallery here, following this very important discussion for them, led by the executive director, Elizabeth Bradley, and I believe there are some members of the board and many of the staff members here. I know for them this has been a fairly long process. We are seeing here in this House what will hopefully be just the last stage of this particular venture of the legislation and then a new beginning for the Hummingbird Centre.

But for people like Elizabeth Bradley and members of the board, led by Councillor Anne Johnston and others, it has been a two-year or two-and-a-half-year process in trying to get agreement to establish the Hummingbird Centre as a stand-alone entity.

That is, in effect, what this legislation would do. It would still maintain public ownership of the Hummingbird Centre, but it would sever the funding relationship from the city of Toronto, from the old Metro council but now from the city of Toronto, and it would give the Hummingbird Centre for the Performing Arts the kind of independent status they have been seeking for some time and for which there is widespread support.

I'm happy to stand here and tell members of the Legislative Assembly that this initiative has the support not only of the Hummingbird Centre itself - all of the unions of people who work for the centre are comfortable and happy with this proposal; all of the people who sustain and support the centre want to see this happen - but also at the local, municipal level; the old Metro council had approved this process, and I'm happy to tell members of the Legislative Assembly that as of yesterday the new city council has also ratified this proposal coming forward, and specifically this initiative and this legislation being approved.

I want to put that on the record.

I also want to say that I have appreciated very much, from the day I was first approached by folks at the Hummingbird Centre about the possibility of my sponsoring this bill, that I have had the good fortune in this to work not only with them but with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr Leach. You will know that I have been on my feet many a time in this Legislature critical of many of the initiatives the Minister of Municipal Affairs has had responsibility to carry forward on behalf of the Mike Harris government.

I want to be very clear that, with the same fervour with which I have criticized the minister on other occasions and for other reasons, I want to thank him and express my appreciation for the support he has given to this initiative, because if this bill has any chance of proceeding beyond second reading, it is also because of the support he has indicated and, I hope through him, the entire Conservative caucus.

In talking with my colleagues in the Liberal caucus, I know they have indicated support for this bill. I hope we will have an opportunity to have that support expressed on the record all around, and, more importantly, I hope we will have the opportunity to get this bill through second reading this morning and, as I said earlier, hopefully put if forward for third reading and final passage this afternoon or this evening, when we will be dealing with those items.

Whether we are from the city of Toronto or from anywhere else in the province, we all know the importance of the performing arts and what they do to us and for us as a society, let alone the whole economic argument. Again, here we may have differences of opinion. In fact, we do have strong differences of opinion between our caucus, the New Democratic Party caucus, and the government in terms of how they have been handling this issue.

But again let me say that when it comes to recognizing the importance of the performing arts, all of us are in agreement that they are economically and socially and culturally, obviously, an important sector in our community. Certainly the many centres that we have that provide an avenue for our many artists to perform, for our many actors to be able to put forward their talents and for all of us as citizens to enjoy and to learn and to appreciate even further the value that comes from the variety of programming that goes on at those centres, are really crucial.

The Hummingbird Centre for the Performing Arts is certainly among the top in our province in terms of providing that avenue and that outlet for the performing arts. The fact that the National Ballet of Canada and the Canadian Opera Company both call the Hummingbird Centre their home is an indicator in and of itself of the importance this centre has in the performing arts world of not just Ontario but indeed Canada and North America.

I am even more so proud of the fact that we have this bill in front of us, that we are able, if we can get this through, to recognize that, in the process of evolution the Hummingbird Centre has gone through, they have come to a point where they believe it's important to be able to say to private donors, to people in the corporate world that they in fact stand alone in terms of not having to rely on government funding from all levels and that in fact they can and are able to do that.

They do an incredible mixture of performances, as I said, from the National Ballet of Canada to the Canadian Opera Company to many other events and performances that I think exhibit the full range of our artists and people in the entire cultural community.

It's also with that in mind that I think it's important we lend our support to this initiative, that we understand that the centre has successfully managed both its operations and ongoing capital maintenance without financial support or subsidy from any level of government for over 15 years. The surpluses they have generated have gone back into improving the centre and the performances they are able to run through the centre.

The goal of this legislation is to complete the establishment of the centre as a stand-alone entity with independent administration, operations and finances entirely distinct from those of the municipality or any other level of government. This bill would make that transition complete, would make that transition whole, would give the independent status that they want. That will allow the centre to build upon the key relationship that the board has already developed with corporate sponsors and donors.

Under the current structure, there is still a perception that there is a link to public funding, which I particularly would not find troublesome, but it is something that the centre sometimes finds problematic as it approaches corporate donors. This would allow that sense of independence to be completed, to be cemented and would allow the centre to go on to do an even greater job than it has managed to do to this date.

I want to say that I am particularly pleased that in the transition the centre will still remain city-owned. In fact, any changes in the future that may be contemplated with respect to other uses of the centre will still have to be determined in the public realm. I think that is important to put on the record and to state that this is not disappearing.

Second, I'm also pleased to note that in the transition the old employment relationships remain as they are; that is, there are a variety of workers, represented by various unions, who do all of the work behind the scenes, if you will, to ensure that all the performances run smoothly in the front of the house, and throughout, as you can imagine in a performance house like the Hummingbird Centre. In fact, all of those employees are being transferred and will continue to have the same employment relationship the day after this bill would get royal assent as they have at this moment in time.

Overall, this enshrines the importance of the Hummingbird Centre within our community. It says, by passing a bill that sets it up as an independent body, that it has evolved to a point where it is able and willing and wishful to carry on its affairs, still responsible to the public but responsible in a way that will not call upon the public coffers for funding. I think that is significant.

I just want to pay tribute to all of those who have done all of the work up until this point so that I have had the good fortune to be able to stand here today to present this bill. I hope this is a bill that will get unanimous agreement by members from all three caucuses.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I'm very glad to lead off debate on the Hummingbird Performing Arts Centre Corporation Act on behalf of the Liberal Party.

My leader, Dalton McGuinty, and members of the Ontario Liberal caucus are very pleased to give our wholehearted support to this bill, and we certainly encourage the government members to do so as well and we look forward to hearing them speak on this bill very soon.

First of all, I would like to congratulate the member for Dovercourt for bringing this bill forward. Not only does it give us, as legislators, the opportunity to give something to the board and the staff and volunteers of the Hummingbird Centre that they have long been seeking, it also allows us the chance to thank them and the artists and performers using their facility for the excellent work they continue to do to enrich the lives of all those who pass through their doors.

I would like to also acknowledge and welcome many of our friends from the board and staff from the Hummingbird Performing Arts Centre who are joining us today for this debate. I'd like to particularly welcome councillor Anne Johnston, chair of the board, and chief executive officer Elizabeth Bradley and many others for being here today.

The Hummingbird is a magnificent cultural facility in the city of Toronto with a long and proud 38-year history as a leading multi-use performance venue for the people of Toronto. The Canadian Opera Company and the National Ballet of Canada are currently resident companies that use the Hummingbird Performing Arts Centre for their world-class productions. Touring companies, individual artists and performers, many of the leading Canadian names from the world of theatre, drama and music have bowed on the stage of the Hummingbird.

If I may say, as a young fellow from Thunder Bay, Ontario - Port Arthur at the time - I remember being quite excited, as an 11-year-old boy, coming down to the Hummingbird, previously the O'Keefe Centre, and seeing a production of Hello, Dolly with Mary Martin in a road show in 1961. It was -

Interjection.

Mr Gravelle: It wasn't Carol Channing, it was Mary Martin. It was an extraordinary, wonderful experience and a big thrill. And may I say, as a result, I think all of us across the province have been familiar with the Hummingbird for many years because of those kinds of things. Also, my sister, Elizabeth - I'm proud to talk about her - was a member of the corps of the National Ballet and I had the opportunity to see her perform at the centre many times in The Nutcracker. I think all across the province the Hummingbird, previously the O'Keefe Centre, is something that's been part of the tradition of all of us in this province.

In most respects, this bill is a housekeeping bill. It's a bill that will give the board the autonomy it needs to forge stronger private sector partnerships and the means to attract new investment. It's a bill that had the support of the former Metro council and, as of yesterday, I understand, the unanimous support of the current city council.

It's a bill that will lead to the establishment of a stand-alone entity that will be governed separately and distinctly from the city structure, but where the city will retain ownership.

It's a bill that finally acknowledges that the Hummingbird is a facility that has managed both its operations and ongoing maintenance without any financial support or subsidy from any level of government for over 15 years.

This bill presented by the member for Dovercourt is in fact a win-win-win proposition. It's a win for the board of directors, who have long sought for governing autonomy and who will now be able to forge ahead in new, exciting directions. It's a win for the city of Toronto, which will still be able to proudly point to the Hummingbird Centre as a significant cultural investment held in trust by the people of the city. It's a win for audiences who will continue to be treated to the best in live musical and theatrical performances, like the National Ballet of Canada's The Nutcracker, an annual Toronto tradition currently on stage at the Hummingbird.

This is a good bill, it's a positive bill and a bill that I am sure all of us in the House are happy to support.

However, if I may, with the little bit of time that I have left and with the indulgence of our guests here today and the members of this Legislature, I want to bring some focus to issues that affect not only the broader arts here in Toronto but all arts and cultural communities right across the province. These are issues that I think seldom get the debate they deserve. Based on the enormous impact that this government's actions have had on the overall health and vitality of our cultural infrastructure, I think they're issues that seldom get the debate they truly demand.

I think everybody here in the House realizes, but perhaps this is a great opportunity to state again, that Ontario's cultural sector is made up of thousands of cultural organizations including the publishing industry, film, television, professional theatres, non-professional theatres, art galleries, museums, individual artists.

These organizations and these individuals contribute $12 billion to the provincial economy each year. These organizations and individuals provide jobs and employment for 265,000 cultural workers in Ontario. For a very modest public investment, they contribute in an extraordinary way to tourism and community development efforts.

But for the last three and a half years and certainly for the years that I've been critic for arts, culture and heritage, I've been concerned about the fact that this government doesn't really want to talk about it and it really doesn't even want to hear about it. They certainly don't have the attitude that I think is expected from the arts community. They seem at times to ignore the tremendous value of the arts in this province and have left the organizations in a very difficult position.

A recent arts fact sheet confirmed what has been feared for some time now: This government's constant attacks on arts and culture have led to the current situation where Ontario is now ranked 10th out of 10 provinces on per-capita spending on the arts. That might startle people, and indeed it should, especially in a province where we've always been so proud in terms of arts, culture and heritage activities.

We know that one of the more alarming cuts to the system has been to the Ontario Arts Council. Since 1995 there's been virtually a 50% cut in support to the Ontario Arts Council. That is a level of cuts that has had a profound and devastating effect on the arts, culture and heritage community in this province. Certainly, we know it has meant that many organizations are really left very much in a survival mode.

I want to argue once again that this government needs to understand that the Ontario Arts Council really is that linchpin of the cultural support that is expected from this province, and it's got a long and noble tradition. I believe that the minister and this government and Mr Harris need to understand that those caps have had a devastating impact and may indeed affect the future of artists who may someday be performing on the stage of the Hummingbird Centre.

We really want to understand how we can change this. As the critic, I have had the opportunity to move around the province in the last year or so and talk to thousands and thousands of people in the arts, culture and heritage community, and they've sent us a message, that I want the members of this Legislature to understand. I know that my party, the Liberal Party, understands very fully that arts, culture and heritage do matter very much to Ontarians.

We heard a strong message as we went around the province, and we believe in a very real way that this is support that all the people of the province would be behind, the kind of feeling that the arts, culture and heritage community has. We certainly heard that the provincial government must have a leading role to play in protecting, promoting and developing Ontario's cultural and heritage identity, but the feeling out there is that the current government has no vision for culture and heritage in this province.

We heard that the provincial government should recognize the tremendous economic and tourism benefits of a healthy cultural infrastructure made up of not-for-profit arts organizations, institutions and cultural industries, but this government does not appear to care about the $12-billion economic contribution of the sector.

We heard that the provincial government should be concerned about the loss of Ontario's built and natural heritage, particularly as we sit at the cusp of the 21st century, yet we have heard many concerns that this government has not done much to prevent the continued erosion of Ontario's heritage resources.

We heard from them that the provincial government should take pride in the work of our artists, our actors, our writers, our dancers, our musicians, our singers, our composers, our film and video makers, and our book and magazine publishers. We heard that they should be proud of the good things done to bring arts and culture to Ontario communities.

More importantly perhaps, we heard that a stable public investment in the arts, culture and heritage is as good for our economy as it is for the vitality and vibrancy of our communities and as it is for the high value we all place on what it means to be Canadian.

Ontario has always had a rich history of being in the forefront of cultural development in Canada. We have the most artists, the greatest institutions, the best public libraries, the most creative and expressive arts and culture community anywhere in Canada, but our concern, and what we heard out there, is that Mike Harris does not care and will not care unless we continue to put the pressure on.

Ontario Liberals certainly believe that arts, culture and heritage do matter to Ontarians. We believe that arts education in the schools is important to developing future artists and audiences. We believe in the importance of citizen access to arts and culture opportunities and that the creative talents of all Ontario citizens should be nurtured and developed.

I am glad to have an opportunity to express some of those feelings. Certainly another member of our caucus will be speaking as well. I wanted to have that opportunity to talk in those terms, but returning to this particular piece of legislation, once again we are proud to be very supportive of this bill by the member for Dovercourt and will stand here in loud support of letting this happen so that they can continue on with their fine work.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I too want to have a few moments to say that I support this bill presented by my colleague from Dovercourt and want to establish my own connection to the cultural sector and say that I was the Minister of Culture in 1990-91. At that time we had some very serious difficulties. As people will remember, that was an economic recession that hurt this province a great deal, and the cultural sector, of course, was equally affected by that recession. It was for that very reason that New Democrats at the time believed that we needed to play, as a government, a strong role in culture.

That is why we gave $7 million to the Ontario Arts Council, to its base, because we felt it was an important organization that funds individuals and funds other organizations of all disciplines in the cultural sector, and we thought that was the most important thing that governments could do to support our culture.

We also at that time supported book and magazine publishers who we knew were struggling to survive, as a result of which we created a magazine and book publishing centre. It was a $5-million centre designed to support publishers that were really on the decline, were falling apart, were going bankrupt, and unless governments got involved at that time, we would have seen the devastation of the publishing sector in magazines and books as well. That is the connection we have had, as the New Democratic Party, to the cultural sector.

I wanted to say that as a way of expressing my appreciation for the arts and as a way of saying that New Democrats believe in a strong role for government in supporting the cultural sector.

In this regard, as it relates to the Hummingbird Centre, we, the province, are asked for no particular financial support; that's not what this bill is all about. It is one of the most important cultural centres in the GTA. I suspect each and every one of the members of this House has attended some performance or other at the Hummingbird Centre, as the result of which many people understand its value to them personally and the value that this cultural centre has to the economy of Toronto, the GTA and Ontario.

What they seek is obviously an autonomous governance structure, something that the member for Dovercourt has already spoken about, so there's no need to belabour that point. The fact is that there are no enemies against this proposal. Normally, you would know that there are many sides to a particular bill and there are many who oppose it. In this proposal that is before us, there are no conflicts that I'm aware of, there are no enemies that I'm aware of. The former Metro government obviously supported this move and the new city of Toronto, I believe yesterday or the day before, has agreed to this proposal, so we don't see an enemy out there that needs to be either listened to or fought.

That is why we feel that government here, the members today should support it. Hopefully the member for Scarborough East will arrive soon so that we can hear his comments, but I'm assuming that he's very supportive, given that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is equally supportive. I would like to hear his comments, but again, I don't foresee any division or difference from the member for Scarborough East. There is no municipal resistance, they indeed support it, and no provincial resistance, because our role here today is administrative in nature, that is, to permit them to go ahead, so I don't foresee any problems.

I remind the House and those listening to the program that the Hummingbird Centre has received no financial assistance from the province, or the city as far as I can tell, for the last 15 years, so there are no financial obligations to each other, which should facilitate the desire for this board to have the autonomy it needs.

Again, I remind Conservative backbenchers, because it's something they may not be aware of, that during the New Democratic Party reign, we passed a total of 17 private members' bills, and I can recall a debate on TVO. I thought Mr Stockwell was one member I debated with and Peter Murphy, from the Liberal Party, was the other member.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Tim Murphy.

Mr Marchese: Tim Murphy. Let's not say any more about that. Tim Murphy, a former member of this House -

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): He lives in my riding now.

Mr Marchese: He lives in Marilyn Churley's riding, and I suspect he'll be supporting you, Marilyn.

We had this debate on TVO about this move that the New Democrats have made, that is, to support a lot of private members' bills, 17 private members' bills. Mr Newman, you should take note of this. We passed a record number of private members' bills, and I remember the host, Steve Paikin, saying to us, "Do you believe this is a sign of the times?" I said, "I think it will be; I think it should be." But I'm not sure the Tories on this bench have taken note of this or have any recollection of that part of our history.

It should indeed be a factor to consider, that governments should be able to support a lot of private members' bills, because in their very nature there tends to be a great deal of support for private members' bills, by and large - as indeed with this bill here, where there is absolutely no conflict whatsoever.

Our fear with many of these private member's bills is, of course, that while the members here might support it, they might decide there's no time to deal with any particular bill: We won't have to deal with it, or we can pass it on to the next session. This is one particular bill that needs not be put off to another session. Frankly, I'm worried that we may not have another session.

It's for that very reason that I urge my friend and colleague Mr Newman to support this very strongly, because we have all-party support; we have the full board here - I suspect it's almost the full board, if not the entire board; and we have some city councillors here - Anne Johnston is here, who's obviously speaking for many of the other city councillors.

They want this autonomy. There is absolutely no reason for me or any other member here to resist it or fight against it. If that is the wish of this board and it is the wish of the city council, we should permit it. Hopefully, we'll move to third reading this afternoon.

Mr John L. Parker (York East): It's my pleasure to have this opportunity to add my voice in support of this bill that's before us this morning, the bill concerning the Hummingbird Centre for the Performing Arts.

Let me begin my remarks by acknowledging the tremendous challenge to my political career that I face in this position, standing in as I am for the redoubtable member for Scarborough East. This is his speaking position in rotation, and I'm humbled to know that in his absence I am stepping, as it were, into his shoes to register my unqualified, unrestricted and unfettered support for the bill that has been brought forward this morning by the member for Davenport. I add my words to those of the members for Fort York and Port Arthur, who have already spoken quite fully in favour of the bill.

This bill concerns the Hummingbird Centre for the Performing Arts, which is a major venue for the performing arts in downtown Toronto. Certainly, residents in the Toronto area are entirely familiar with the Hummingbird Centre and are familiar with the name change that took place just a few years ago. Elsewhere in the province, the name Hummingbird Centre might not be quite so well known and so well recognized, but I have no doubt that throughout the province the name O'Keefe Centre resonates with great memories and tremendous visions of the importance of that venue.

That is the building we are talking about, the building which opened in about 1960 with a donation from the O'Keefe company to the people of Toronto. It opened at that time under the name the O'Keefe Centre, and operated for many years under that name. As I recall, it opened with a performance of Camelot, featuring Richard Burton, Robert Goulet and Julie Andrews. That was certainly a performance that went on to great renown after a long run on Broadway, but it opened here. It began in Toronto at the O'Keefe Centre, currently known as the Hummingbird Centre.

From that auspicious beginning, the Hummingbird Centre has gone on to triumph after triumph and, as has already been noted, has been the venue for international performing artists of great reputation. The greatest names in the performing arts field, with international reputations, have all performed on the stage of the Hummingbird Centre. Many people in Toronto and, as we have heard, from all around the province and indeed from outside the country have come to the Hummingbird Centre to see the performances that have been put on there.

The Hummingbird Centre, as has been noted, is the venue not only of Broadway performances, but also of more locally focused performances, and is home to the Canadian Opera Company and the National Ballet.

I'm old enough to remember when the Hummingbird Centre opened under the name of the O'Keefe Centre. My first memory of the O'Keefe Centre was attending a performance of Treasure Island. My memory of that performance, although I was quite young at the time, is very vivid in my mind still. I couldn't understand at the time why a theatre would open a brewing company on the side, but my understanding of that particular situation has increased over time and now I understand that it's a computer software operation that is operated on the side by the theatre.

The significance of the bill before us today is that it marks a landmark in the history of this very important institution. The Hummingbird Centre is owned by the people of Toronto, has been from the start, but it has always been managed under the auspices of the municipal authorities in Toronto. For many years it operated under a subsidized arrangement from Metro Toronto, but I'm very pleased to note that for quite some time now, about 15 years, the Hummingbird Centre has operated in the black, without the need for subsidy from the taxpayers of Toronto.

It is a viable institution in its own right, standing on its own feet, still owned by the people of Toronto, still managed for the benefit of the people of Toronto, but operating without the need to go to the people of Toronto for a constant subsidy, which is the concern that often arises with other publicly owned theatre ventures.

If I can just digress here and respond to a comment that we heard from across the way, I'm disappointed that in a bill that has unanimous support, certainly support from all three caucuses here this morning, the discussion has already ventured into the partisan political area. We've heard the comment that Ontario is 10th out of 10 in support for the arts. If you choose statistics the way you want to, you can make your statistics prove just about anything you want.

Some people will measure a community's commitment to a purpose in terms of public dollars that are directed to that purpose, but what we have here in Ontario is the most thriving arts community in the entire country. The Hummingbird Centre is a stellar example of that point.

For the last 15 years, without a nickel of public dollars, the Hummingbird Centre has been home to numerous performances of outstanding artistic quality, none greater in the world than the Canadian Opera Company and the National Ballet, but they don't stand alone in the significance that the performances have taken place at the Hummingbird Centre without a nickel of public dollars to subsidize the operation of the Hummingbird Centre.

It's a recognition of the degree of maturity that the Hummingbird Centre has reached and the importance it occupies, not only in Toronto and in the greater Toronto area but, as we've already heard, well beyond the greater Toronto area, to communities throughout the province and indeed the significance that the Hummingbird Centre serves as a cultural attraction and a tourist attraction, bringing theatregoers from across the border to Toronto to see the performances that take place at the Hummingbird Centre.

It is a recognition of that degree of maturity that the Hummingbird Centre has achieved that this bill comes forward today, because what this bill does is to establish the Hummingbird Centre clearly as an independent organization on a non-profit basis, operating for the purposes of the general public, still owned by the general public but not with any expectation that it will be reaching out to the taxpayer for an ongoing subsidy.

Putting the Hummingbird Centre on an independent footing, which is what this bill does, equips the Hummingbird Centre to operate independently, on its own, and to attract private assistance where it's required, where it's mandated and where it's appropriate. Putting it on this independent footing sends a signal to the vast and enthusiastic charitable, philanthropic community in Ontario that the Hummingbird Centre is a worthy cause for them to support.

It is not a matter of displacing taxpayers' dollars in subsidizing the operations of the O'Keefe Centre and it's not supplementing taxpayers' dollars, because taxpayers' dollars will no longer be involved in supporting the operations of the Hummingbird Centre. It will be a stand-alone operation and it will be worthy of support by private philanthropic donation. That marks a great milestone in the life of that important institution.

The model that is represented by this new arrangement for the Hummingbird Centre isn't altogether a new one for my community.

In my community of Leaside, on a modest scale, we have the Leaside Memorial Gardens, which was begun many years ago in the old town of Leaside as a community centre, a community resource owned by the community, operated for the benefit of the community and run by a community board; not by the municipality but by an independent board drawn from the community, serving the community, responding to the community and reaching out to the community from time to time for assistance where that assistance has been merited; a board that does not answer to the municipal council but that answers to its membership and to the needs of the community directly.

That's not a lot different from the model we have represented here before us in this bill for the new operation of the Hummingbird Centre. The board of directors of the Hummingbird Centre will consist of 12 members, but only three of those members will be appointed by the municipality. The other nine members will not be appointed by the municipality and the board will not answer to the municipality in the way that the current board is required to. I'm pleased to note, by the way, that the current board is well represented in the members' gallery this morning.

The CEO, Elizabeth Bradley, and the current chair of the board, Anne Johnston, are here with us this morning. They've been recognized already, and I add my welcome to the words of welcome that have already been extended their way.

I'm pleased that the current board is very supportive of this bill. I'm pleased that the minister is supportive of this bill, and I'm delighted to note that by the comments registered so far this morning it appears that this House will be unanimously supportive of this bill.

Mr Speaker, thank you very much for this opportunity to add my voice in support of this very significant bill on behalf of a very important Toronto landmark.

Mr Gerretsen: Let me first of all congratulate the government on its brilliant strategy this morning in having the member for York East take the lead on this rather than the member for Scarborough East. I think this is just a brilliant move. It gets the House in the right frame of mind to deal with the issues that we deal with on a last day like this.

When we were talking about memories of the O'Keefe Centre or the Hummingbird Centre, it brought back memories to me. I hadn't realized that I actually saw that first production of Camelot. I don't mean the very first one, but sometime -

Ms Churley: Which one?

Mr Gerretsen: The one with Richard Burton back in the 1960-61 season. I didn't realize the theatre had just opened. I was just a young fellow, with our grade 13 class from my community, as a matter of fact. Later on I can remember seeing Harry Belafonte there.

Then years after that when my wife and I lived here in Toronto during my later student years for a short period of time, about a three-year period of time, my wife and I got very much interested in the opera series that always take place in October and November and I can remember we used to get rush seats. You used to be able to go up to the theatre about 15 minutes before the opera actually started and get rush tickets, sometimes for the best seats in the house that for whatever reason weren't picked up. If memory serves me correctly, these tickets were very, very inexpensive, something like $3, $4 or $5.

Of course, it was a number of years ago, but they were very inexpensive, less than half the cost, or even less than that.

We all have memories of the O'Keefe and now the Hummingbird Centre, and I guess what that underlines more than anything is that this is truly not just a Toronto theatre for the performing arts. People from across Ontario have enjoyed the performances there, from across Canada and, as has been mentioned before, from across the border as well.

I think in times when the financial situations of governments get tough and when the financial situations for individuals get tough, there is always a tendency to cut the arts and cultural and heritage programs first, not just by this government but by any government. I've seen it happen at the local level; I've seen it happen undoubtedly at the federal level. But I really think it is just as important that people have an understanding of their culture and partake of the cultural activities and have an understanding of their heritage and partake of that as well as any other program that governments are involved in.

I firmly believe that, and sometimes I think we undervalue the small seed money that is required to get an entire program going. I know that quite often in any kind of fundraising that we were involved with for arts and cultural matters, for example, at the local level, the question that always came up when you went to a corporate organization was, "How much is the municipality going to put into this?" They wanted to see that seed money.

We're talking here about a very successful centre that for the last 15 years, I guess, has basically operated without public funds. What we tend to forget is that most of the arts and cultural grants that the province is involved with are for organizations that really need that money, because we're dealing with young, struggling artists in a variety of fields that need that extra push and that extra benefit.

I really think that for the amount of money we're talking about in the totality of things - for example, the museum grants are down to $4 million in the 1998-99 budget and the Ontario Arts Council is down to $25 million. It's not a drop in the bucket at all, but when you look at it in the total amount of money that's spent by government, it certainly is not a large amount in that sense.

And when you look at the stimuli that this brings to the artistic community, I think this is something we should really take a very hard look at and government should not take the opportunity whenever it can to cut these various programs.

We totally support it, and we also hope that this government will bring in a new Ontario Heritage Act as they promised to do when they were elected in 1995.

Ms Churley: It's my pleasure to be able to speak this morning in support of Bill 97,

An Act to establish the Hummingbird Performing Arts Centre Corporation, and to also thank the member for Dovercourt for bringing it forward. I know that the members of the board and staff and people involved have been waiting for this for some time.

I want to welcome Anne Johnston, the chair of the board, and the CEO, Elizabeth Bradley, and would like to say that it's a pleasure to have Anne Johnston here. We were sort of colleagues some years ago, although she was on the then Metro council and I served on city council. May I say that it was always a pleasure to work with Anne. I know how devoted and committed she has always been to the arts, and I'm delighted that she's now the chair of the board of the Hummingbird Centre.

I also want to particularly thank the lawyers for drafting this bill, and I want to thank them for being a little bit late in getting the wording correct. Because, and let me drift away from this bill briefly, the wording wasn't quite ready for last week, which was when Mr Silipo was going to present his bill, I was able to slip in the little space created and get second reading on my adoption disclosure bill, Bill 88.

I must say that I'm very thankful for that, because I might not have been able to bring that bill forward if the lawyers hadn't been having a little bit of difficulty, I understand, in getting the wording right. So it's a win-win situation for all of us. I'd like to say as well that when my bill was debated last week, it got second reading on a 57 to 3 vote, I believe.

I would say to the people who are here today from the Hummingbird Centre that you are witnessing a very rare occasion in this Legislature, and that is peace and harmony among all three parties on this bill.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): It's Christmas.

Ms Churley: It is Christmas, but it's more than that. Obviously we all support your bill, and my understanding from the member for York East, whom I must congratulate - I think he did a very good job standing in for the member for Scarborough East, and we were delighted that he was able to stand in for him this morning, because we now know for sure that this peace and harmony is going to stay within these walls this morning. Of course, he could come barging - oh, I'm not allowed to talk about the fact that he, I'm sure, was detained beyond his control this morning.

Anyway, I'm delighted and I suspect, from what the member for York East said, that in fact we will go ahead this morning and allow this bill to go to third reading, because there is some concern that we may not be coming back. I certainly hope that we do because, again coming back to my private member's bill, however briefly, I'd like to thank the government House leader for promising yesterday that if the House does prorogue, he will allow my bill, the adoption disclosure bill, on a special motion to be carried forward notwithstanding the House proroguing. I really appreciate that.

You may wonder why we are even having this debate this morning, because we all do agree. We do want to be on the record as supporting this. Three of our four Toronto members in the NDP caucus are here this morning to speak to this bill, and the member for Beaches-Woodbine would be, but she has a friend who is very ill and she was not able to be here this morning. But she wanted me to extend her congratulations and good wishes.

To the member for York East - and I want to say this very briefly, because I agree that in a bill like this which we all support, we shouldn't get too political - I just want to say that we're not playing with numbers and statistics here. It is an inescapable fact that the Harris government cut about $15 million from the Ontario Arts Council, I think from about a $45-million budget, whatever. It's not a whole lot of money for the entire arts community. I mention that because it's significant in terms of what we're doing today.

These cuts, and cuts overall across the system, do affect young and emerging and new artists, and there's more, I would say, competition for the charitable dollar out there, not just in the arts community but throughout the community as a whole. That's why I think this bill is even more important, and that we pass it today.

The fact that the Hummingbird Performing Arts Centre has not had to use any government funding from any level for 15 years tells us that they certainly are in a position to be able to continue fundraising from the private sector. They've proven that over the past 15 years, and it would be very foolish indeed to allow the perception, when they are out there fundraising from the private sector, that they are getting funding from Toronto council when in fact they are not. The fact that they could end up not being able to get some of those dollars through a misconception is very foolish, so it's absolutely essential that this bill be passed, and passed quickly.

I would like to again thank the member for Dovercourt for bringing this forward today.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I too rise in support of this bill before us. It's always a real privilege when a member is able to bring forward a bill of this nature, because I believe there is going to be broad support from all three parties for a bill that makes ultimate sense to an organization that has served our very broad community so well.

I don't live in Toronto. I live in the wonderful town of Aurora and represent the riding of York-Mackenzie, but I can tell you that many people from across the GTA come into the heart of Toronto largely because of attractions such as the Hummingbird Centre and the wonderful presentations that are made there.

I had much to say today, but my friend Mr Parker waxed so eloquent and, as usual, cut into my time. I was hoping that this could be my stepping stone on to that stage, because there are certainly people here today who, had they heard my soliloquy, I'm sure I would have had some calls. I can only say that you have wonderful seats here today as members of the board and the very senior people. We trust that when we come to the Hummingbird Centre you will accommodate us likewise, and perhaps at the same price.

Welcome. We look forward to passing this bill. I leave some time for my colleague from Durham-York.

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : J'aimerais additionner ma voix à ce projet de loi introduit par mon collègue M. Silipo. Pour ce qui est important dans ce projet de loi, c'est pour créer une structure indépendante pour la Société du Centre Hummingbird ici à Toronto.

Je veux que le monde en comprenne l'importance, parce que c'est très difficile. Il y a une perception que l'argent pour ce Centre est payé par la ville de Toronto et payé par les contribuables, mais ce n'est pas la situation. Comme on le sait, nous à cette Assemblée, ce Centre fait tout son financement à travers des prélèvements de fonds, et la raison pour laquelle ils ont besoin de cette indépendance à travers ce projet de loi, c'est pour avoir l'habilité, quand ils font leurs prélèvements de fonds, de dire, «Nous sommes une entité séparée.

On n'est pas financés par la ville de Toronto ou par la province de l'Ontario avec des gros chiffres, et il est important que vous venez nous donner le support nécessaire avec vos dollars pour qu'on puisse continuer nos activités.»

C'est pour cette raison que le Centre Hummingbird veut avoir cette indépendance. Ce ne pas parce qu'ils sont en chicane avec la ville de Toronto, très le contraire. C'est pour leur donner la distinction d'être vue comme une organisation séparée. Quand ils font les prélèvements de fonds, ça devient beaucoup plus facile et beaucoup plus subtile quand ça vient à être capable de rechercher l'argent dont ils ont besoin.

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): I simply want to add my congratulations to the member for Dovercourt for providing us with this piece of legislation today. While many have spoken on a personal basis about the Hummingbird Centre to reminisce, I would like to take this opportunity to talk for a very brief moment on the future. As someone who has a nephew with the National Ballet, I recognize that this is a most important institution within our cultural community which steps out into the economic and social life of our city and in fact our province. I want to compliment you on bringing this forward today, and certainly support it.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The member for Dovercourt has two minutes to wrap up, but before he does, I didn't want you to think that I was culturally deprived. I come from 100 miles away, and my wife and I will never forget the performance by that icon of music, the man with the musical trumpet, the late Louis Armstrong, in your centre.

The Chair recognizes the member for Dovercourt.

Mr Silipo: Speaker, dare I say that this is what private members' public hour should probably be more and more about? It's a position that I've held from the first day that I stepped into this Legislature, and I'm really happy to see that we were able to come together on something like this that gives the Hummingbird Centre its unique independent status.

Let me just thank a few people in the remaining moments that I have. My colleague and friend from Riverdale mentioned the lawyers, and she's quite right that the reason we are dealing with this issue now rather than last week is because we wanted to make sure there was 100% agreement and consonance between the city of Toronto, the board and the ministry. Again, I want to thank the minister for making that commitment, and particularly in this case for making the legal counsel from the ministry available to work with the legal counsel from the city and our own legislative counsel.

I want to personally thank the lawyers who actually worked on this from the ministry, Hal Linscott and Tom Melville; from our own legislative counsel, Cornelia Schuh and Susan Klein; and from the city of Toronto, Allison Fowles.

What we see here in front of us is the product of many hours of work that they have put together, which obviously builds on the many years of work that has come through the Hummingbird Centre and the kind of dedication of the members of the board, led by councillor Johnston, who's here; Michael Prue, Maria Augimeri and others who have served through the years; obviously, as well, the general manager and chief executive officer, Elizabeth Bradley; our own assistant, Carolyn Gloude.

Let me thank lastly my own legislative assistant, Carmela Sasso, who has done a lot of the running around, back and forth, to get this bill to this point.

I thank members of the House for the all-party support for this important piece of legislation which will give the Hummingbird Centre the future stepping stone that they so well deserve.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I seek unanimous consent to be able to read the motion into the record and that Mr Kennedy's leadoff speech be set down until later.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Gerretsen has asked for unanimous consent to read in the motion before us. Is there consent? It is agreed.

Mr Gerretsen: Thank you very much. I'd like to thank the government members for the generosity they've displayed this morning on two separate occasions now.

The resolution reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, since individuals, organizations and corporations who provide health care have a unique role in shaping both the public's understanding of, and policy within, the health care system; and

Since in an era of rapid change it is crucial there be sufficient information to ensure the public is protected at all times; and

Since these health care providers are presently restricted by a variety of direct and indirect strictures and pressures from publicly raising issues in Ontario's interest that are discerned in the course of their duties; and

Since the resulting lack of openness in the health care system results in mistakes that could be readily prevented;

Therefore, the government should take immediate legislative action to guarantee these care providers who in good faith apprehend that the safety, wellbeing or dignity of present or future patients is or will be compromised and be allowed to speak responsibly within the public forum without any reprisal to health care employees by their employer or to health care employers by the government.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to the standing orders, the member for York South has 10 minutes.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): It is my privilege to support and to introduce, with help from the member for Kingston and The Islands, this resolution today.

It is an extremely important time in the development of health care in Ontario and it is vital that this institution, the Legislature of Ontario, provide to the health care workers of this province some sense of where we stand in relation to the situation that they face, because what we have in Ontario today, I think all parties can agree, is a circumstance of rapid change, so that, for example, the Ivey school of business talks about it as an unprecedented effort in terms of the kinds of things that are happening in the hospital corridors, in the rooms and the various other organizations that are trying to provide health care.

What it means for us is an appreciation of what it is that the doctors and nurses are facing both in terms of the individual challenges they have for their skills and their abilities as health care providers, but also for the climate in which they're operating.

What we find in Ontario today is a climate that precludes the safety of patients in a very significant way. Nurses and doctors find they're not in a position to express their true feelings about the circumstances that are facing their patients, and for each of us recognizing in our constituencies how much our local families, the elderly, the people who turn to the medical system most often, depend on the opinions of health providers in terms of trusting the system which we in this Legislature have the ultimate responsibility for.

It is, therefore, vital that there are no barriers in the way of doctors, nurses, nurse assistants and the health organizations themselves in fully joining the debate, in being able to express to our local public, to the people in our areas, as well as ourselves and the government in its capacity, the information we need to know about what's really happening as a result of health changes, the difficulties that could happen at any time in any era, but particularly now. The goal of this motion is to enhance patient safety.

The method to do that is to ensure that the reprisals against individuals and organizations are prohibited if they're speaking out responsibly and in good faith about health matters of which they have direct knowledge.

The trust that the public puts on health care providers is, of course, instructive to us as elected officials. I think some of the recent polls have shown that doctors and nurses enjoy respect ratings of around 65% or 67%,

whereas politicians sit around 9%. I think the important thing is that there is a place and a purpose for nurses and doctors to be able to speak out, not just on their own behalf but certainly on behalf of their patients. Their ability to do that should not be left to coroners' inquests of the type that just concluded in Mississauga looking into the circumstances of the death of five-year-old Kyle Martyn. We don't want health professionals only to be able to tell us their considered opinion about what is happening because of changes or alterations in the health system after the fact. That's simply not good enough.

Health professionals now have that duty under the regulations of their professional colleges to speak up, to talk about those things, and there are processes to deal with that. What there isn't provision for is the ability for nurses and doctors to really have a voice when changes are taking place in so many important areas.

The recent news around difficulties for a high-risk delivery, for example, in Toronto, when you look into that situation facing the Bouffard family, where triplets had to be delivered in Kingston, 300 kilometres away, it wasn't a one-off situation. It wasn't a circumstance, a confluence of fates, where somehow they found themselves in that difficulty.

To the consternation, I'm sure, of every new parent, they need to know that the professionals who work in that system - Dr Clifford Librach, who brought the situation to light, and Dr Barrett, who's the head of the multiple birth clinic at Women's College, had prior and standing knowledge that there were not enough neonatal beds. They, as well as the nurses who work in that unit, know that there simply are not enough of those beds open.

It is extremely important, and I think it should not intimidate any member of the government, any member in this House, to have that knowledge spoken of and put out there publicly so that we can have a fair and open debate about the changes which are taking place in the health system. I'm sure it was not a matter of point of pride to the government when the Premier had to call the Bouffard family and basically apologize or relate that he wished it hadn't happened.

Today, we have a resolution which would have the government act in a fashion that would ensure that some of those things could not happen. What is happening today we've only learned because of this near tragedy, this four-hour ambulance ride that the Bouffards had to take to get from Toronto to Kingston, all through which they ran the risk of those triplets dying, because if they were delivered en route they would not have survived. The reason they were traversing that route was because the equipment to keep those new infants alive did not exist in all of the greater Toronto area.

It's extremely important that we recognize that this is a public safety measure that we in this Legislature need to take. I know some of the rationale for this may be difficult in terms of government members, but I don't think it should be.

In other words, recognizing that there are changes in the system, that some areas have been cut back, that there's lower job security for nurses - for example, members of the public may not be aware, but when we hear about more money being spent in health care, a very large amount of that, in fact in the last two years, $410 million, has been spent to fire nurses, to lay off the very people whom we would like to be able to have the confidence to tell us what is happening in the health system.

Instead, they're working in a climate where that's extremely difficult, where doctors no longer have the assurance that they will have privileges at the organizations they need to in order to practise their craft. The hospitals are now not able to offer privileges to the doctors who had them before. When all 45 hospitals slated by this government close, that is certain to be the case.

All that needs to be accepted about those conditions - I'm sure there are members on the government side who will defend those kinds of decisions, but we must recognize that one of the consequences, one of the by-products, if you like, is that it creates a climate of intimidation for nurses and doctors, where they don't feel they can speak up, again not on their behalf but on behalf of patients; where they're forced to choose between their livelihood, their ability to continue, and the things they see in front of them. Of course, significantly, many of them are voting with their feet.

Doctors have left this province in record numbers, and so have nurses left the profession. We have had a historical number of retirements on the part of nurses. We have widespread reports of discouragement.

I'm sure there is nobody on the other side of the House who doesn't believe that part of the reason I'm bringing this forward is because I have the privilege to serve as the opposition critic for health. But it is only one part of that capacity that leads me to bring this forward, in what I hope will be received as a constructive spirit. I have met with nurses and doctors all around the province at various times who have not felt secure to be able to express their opinions, who have not felt they could speak up.

I've also spoken to organizations that feel, perhaps without foundation in some instances, the government would enact reprisals against them. So we in this Legislature are not being told the truth about what's happening.

It's not necessarily, I would venture to express, an intimidation for the government to recognize that that would be a beneficial thing for us to have. These are not always going to be complaints about the government; they're always going to be, under the spirit of this resolution, matters of patient safety. I would like to believe there is nobody in this House who would be against that; there is no one who would not want to see patient safety protected at all times.

In terms of the need for this legislation, I want to announce today the results of a poll by the Ontario Nurses' Association. They polled nurses on November 17, and 78% of those nurses say that problems go unreported because of fear of losing their job; 55% say many problems go unreported, 23% say some problems and only 7% say that all problems are being reported. I would like to believe that in this House we would stand for having all health problems reported and none not reported as a result of a feeling of intimidation or fear of losing their job on the part of nurses.

The only manner in which we're going to be able to proceed is to have a resolution from this House which calls upon the government to do what it has already agreed to do. The minister has agreed to pass a patient safety act. The resolution of this House would simply relate our urgency and conviction that this patient safety act be sure to include those provisions which it's supposed to in order to protect the ability of health providers to speak up.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I'm pleased to have an opportunity to respond to the resolution brought forward by the member for York South. I think it is very clear where our party is on this issue of patient safety. We brought forward a Health Care Accountability and Patients' Bill of Rights Act, and one of the most significant matters in that act was the protection of employees from whistle-blowing.

The member for York South talks about the climate of fear that is there in health care facilities, in health care in general, even health care that's provided in the community, among those who are actually giving the services to patients. He is very right.

As we've gone around the province, we've heard from nurses, from registered practical nurses, from home care workers and from physicians about their concerns that the cutbacks that have happened in many areas of service, the lack of infused funding to deal with increased demand in the long-term-care area, is actually making them fearful that they are not fulfilling their obligations as professionals, as required under the Regulated Health Professions Act.

We heard from nurses who clearly believe that what they are being asked to do is not safe for patients, that there are too few of them. We heard from a registered nurse, for example, in a long-term-care facility who has sole care of 90 elderly frail patients overnight. Those of us who have loved ones in long-term-care facilities like to believe that their safety is protected. I recall a situation not long ago in Mississauga, within the last couple of years, where a fire erupted at a long-term-care facility. An inquest clearly said there were not enough staff to evacuate people carefully, to evacuate people quickly enough to prevent them from suffering damage.

Nurses and health care workers work in these circumstances all the time. It's not surprising that the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario, the Registered Practical Nurses Association of Ontario and the Ontario Nurses' Association have all asked for a patient safety bill that clearly lays out what the standards are for nursing care; that would clearly allow them to go to work with the comfort that they are meeting their professional obligations under the Regulated Health Professions Act, to answer to their colleges for their actions in a way that is responsible. That's what they want.

But that requires them to be able to blow the whistle when their employer is not following those standards. So there are two things that are required: first the setting of standards, and then the capacity to complain.

I would say to my friend the member for York South that the capacity to complain without any standards means very little, because although they may complain, what kind of an investigation could there be and how could it be proven that in fact the standards haven't been met if we're not all clear about what those standards are?

In long-term care, for example, when our government put in long-term-care reform, we put in a regulation that required every nursing home to dedicate 2.5 hours of nursing care each day to each resident in a facility. That was a standard. If that standard wasn't met, there was a way of dealing with it. It was a way for investigators to look at the staff rosters, to look at the number of patients, to look at whether or not that standard was being met.

But one of the first things this government did was to repeal that regulation. Quite frankly, one of the things that amazes me is that the people of Ontario haven't risen up in force and said: "What on earth is going on? There are no guarantees when I put my grandmother, my mother, my cousin into a long-term-care facility that there is any standard of care that I can accept."

As we've travelled around the province to facilities and to home care providers, we know that when there is not a requirement, especially for profit-making organizations, to staff to a standard level, what we see is a deterioration in care. For the frail elderly, this usually means they may be either restrained physically or put in a situation where they are drugged to maintain their quietness or, at very least, that they don't get the kind of activation that's necessary to keep them healthy.

If we believe that each of us is entitled to a quality of life to the end of our life, the prospect of ending our lives in facilities where that dedication isn't there and the resources aren't there, and there isn't some mechanism for determining that that care is provided, ought to be very frightening. That's exactly what the situation is today.

Frankly, in home care it's even worse, because in facility care at least there is a possibility for families to get together and to talk about what is happening in that facility. It's possible for families to talk together about the problems that are happening around hygiene, the problems that are happening around bedsores, the problems that are happening around a lack of attention to people who require intensive work with them around their toileting, around their eating. It's possible for them to at least have some collective voice. But in the home care area, we are all isolated in our own home care situations.

Frankly, there's an effort on the part of the government and home care providers to try to convince us that if we complain, we're denying someone else the care that they deserve. The Minister of Long-Term Care, when the member for Kingston and The Islands raised the issue of 2,000 elderly patients losing service in the Kingston area, stood in this House and said, "They were getting too much service, and we have to spread the dollars around so everybody gets the same low level of service," which is terribly offensive in communities that have worked hard together to build strong home care programs.

When you are caring for a person at home you are, just by definition, isolated in a very real way, when there's no mechanism for you to complain and you certainly can't get the support of your home care worker - who, as the member for York South has pointed out very clearly, if they complain on the part of the patient, are very often job-threatened. We run into really serious difficulties.

I would say the most serious problem we've run into is when the profit motive drives those who are delivering care. It is hard under a non-profit situation to deliver care effectively with the levels of funding that this government provides. That's difficult. But when you also have the demands of shareholders, who are expecting a return on their investment, and that return on their investment comes out of the dollars that we as taxpayers pay for the care of patients, the situation is that much worse.

We know from talking to employees across the province that their apprehension around reporting lack of standards, lack of care, is much worse where their employer is a private employer, where they may not be protected, in many cases, by a collective agreement, where they may not, in many cases, have the comfort of knowing there is some public accountability on the part of that organization. We have to remember that private organizations are not required to give details of how they spend the public dollars they get.

One of the issues in terms of enforcing standards for health care is making sure the money that is supposed to be spent on patients' food is spent on patients' food, that the money that is supposed to be spent on qualified staff to care for patients is actually being spent there. As soon as you have shareholders demanding an ever-greater share of the public tax dollars that go to those organizations, you see more erosion of care.

I would not suggest that every public organization is necessarily guiltless in this whole issue. I am very aware that there are efforts to cut corners, particularly where municipalities, through their tax dollars, are supporting these organizations as well. I worry about that. I am saying that whether you're getting your care publicly or privately, there should be standards that need to be met; there should be an enforcement mechanism to be sure that when those standards are not being met, the providers are required to come up to standard and to stay there.

Very often, the only people who know the reality of what goes on in a facility, the reality of what goes on in home care in terms of cutbacks, cutbacks, cutbacks in the level of service and how that affects patients, are the health care providers themselves.

The member for York South is absolutely right to say that there should be some protection for these people. I'm amazed, quite frankly, that he would come up with a resolution that wanders all around the issue, rather than a very clear bill that gives whistle-blower protection to health care providers in these circumstances. This government has entertained quite a few of the opposition party's private bills. We've had big discussions, extensive discussions, about some of the Liberal private members' bills that have come forward.

I am amazed that we do not have here a bill that clearly outlines what the Liberal position is on the setting of standards and whistle-blowing. Instead of that, we have this woolly, wordy piece of verbiage that does not clearly say what they would do if they were to form the government. This is what we see throughout the health care thing: all sorts of lovely words pandering to everybody without any clarity about what they would really do.

It's important at this point for us to be very clear about what our positions are. We have done that.

We put forward a Health Care Accountability and Patients' Bill of Rights Act, which was passed by this House, which sits there on the docket - without going anywhere, I may add - that at least clearly puts us on the record as to where we think we need to go with this, that clearly states how you set those standards, that you set them in conjunction with the professionals who have the expertise, with the colleges that have a responsibility for maintaining standards of practice under the registered health professions, with the Ontario Hospital Association, that has some responsibility in terms of publicly funded hospitals to ensure that best practices are followed.

We have clearly said in that bill that there needs to be protection for workers who work in the health care field when they call attention to the fact that the standards set are not being met. We have a commitment. We're very clear about it. We're not saying, "People should be protected and we should look at their expertise, and therefore we should protect these people." We're saying how you do that and we're saying why you do it, and we're giving the mechanism by which that can happen. That's what we need.

We've had a lot of change in health care, and we need to be prepared to continue to look at the best practices that can be delivered in all aspects of health care. Whether it's delivered in hospital, whether it's delivered at home, whatever the mechanism of delivery, we have to be sure that our tax dollars are going for a standard of care of which we will be proud as citizens and which we will then be able to access when we need it.

It is important, I think, for people in the province of Ontario to know that it is possible to set standards, it is possible to enforce standards and it is possible to protect those who blow the whistle when standards aren't being met. Government can do that through legislation. They can't do it when all they do is talk about it. They can't do it unless they are clear about the mechanism, unless they actually have a process which people can follow when they have concerns.

I have spent a lot of time with patients and with their families around this issue of standards of care and best practices. We have a population in the province of Ontario that is knowledgeable, that knows it's important for them to know what to expect, that knows it's important for them to be able to rely on the government that pays for the services to enforce standards and knows that their best ally in that effort is always the health care professional who delivers the services.

The member for York South will find great support for the notion of whistle-blower protection. It's just unfortunate that he didn't outline how this would really work.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): It's my pleasure to join the debate here this morning on this resolution. The member for York South has brought forward a resolution that has been essentially debated in this House previously. I am of course referring to Bill 50, which was brought forward by the member for London Centre earlier this year. Specifically, Bill 50 included a

section that addressed the issue of health care employees ensuring patient safety. It was this bill that was brought forward by the member for London Centre, the patient safety act, which as I mentioned was introduced earlier, in June, and received second reading and was sent to the committee of the whole. This bill incorporated specific detail with respect to openness in health care reporting. I agree with her that the Liberal health plan or lack of a health plan leaves me too with many question marks.

As I mentioned in previous debates, I want to again reiterate some of the commitments our government has made when it comes to patient safety and the delivery of health services in Ontario. I must begin by saying that the content of this resolution and what it is asking the government to do is a very complex issue. Patient safety and the delivery of services are of the utmost importance to this government, and that is why we are taking several steps to ensure that these issues receive careful consideration before any decisions are made.

For example, our government will work with various organizations such as the Ontario Medical Association, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, the Ontario Hospital Association, the Ontario Nursing Association, the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario and the federation of regulatory colleges to ensure accountability for patient outcomes. More important, our government is currently working to introduce a comprehensive health care quality act that will encompass a far broader recognition of health care accountability.

The resolution being debated here today does not go far enough, and I say that because it does not go far enough in that our government believes it is important to include not only employees of the health sector but also family members who raise issues surrounding patient care and the delivery of services.

While I agree with the resolution in principle and what it represents to the people of Ontario, I must wonder if it's not just another attempt by the Liberal health critic to strike fear in the minds of Ontario's health workers and patients. Mr Kennedy's resolution implies that health care workers are unable to voice their opinions with respect to health care reform and the delivery of services, and I ask him why when his party was the government in this province they did not bring something forward to deal with it.

I know that all members of the House here know that the member for York South has a knack for creating a crisis; in fact, in a Toronto Star

article back in 1996 his successor at the Daily Bread Food Bank referred to his ability to create a crisis. I think he has brought that with him to the Legislature.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): Chicken Little syndrome.

Mr Newman: The Chicken Little syndrome, I say to the member for York Mackenzie. I agree with that.

The letter of September 12, 1997, from the president and CEO of the Humber River Regional Hospital says:

"While there are many issues and challenges in merging organizations and consolidating services which impact on our patients, staff and members of the community, you seem more interested in generating fear within the community around the safety and quality of care provided to individuals regardless of whether or not the facts support this conclusion."

That's shameful. In fact, if we look back at the Sudbury Star of September 19, 1998, the editorial says:

"Kennedy would better serve voters by listing what needs to be done to the system to ensure services" -

Mr Gerretsen: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: We have listened to this member now for the last three minutes doing nothing but attack the integrity of the member for York South. He should stick to the issue. There's a specific resolution. I would ask you to ask him to stick to the issue and not to make personal attacks against members in this House.

The Deputy Speaker: That is a point of order; however, we differ very much on the

interpretation of the facts as you have stated them, so I will not -

Mr Gerretsen: Do you agree with what the member is saying about our member here?

The Deputy Speaker: It's not within my purview to agree or disagree with anything that is said in this House; it's to carry out the rules as you have made them.

The Chair recognizes the member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr Newman: I note that I was not attacking the Liberal credibility on health care; I was attacking their lack of credibility on health care.

It says here, September 19, "What We Say: Grit MPP Does Voters a Disservice."

I know that the member for Kingston and The Islands had cut into my time. I just want to again mention that our government is spending $18.9 billion on health care. That's $1.5 billion more than any other government in the history of this province.

I'm going to share my time with the members for Northumberland and York-Mackenzie, and I'll leave them the rest of the time.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I only have about five minutes, and I want to contribute on the resolution brought in by the member for York South. It is not only timely but it's a very important resolution, and I do hope, according to the last speaker, that indeed we will see their support, because he just said it is good but it doesn't go far enough. As a beginning, let's hope that they will see the light and support this important resolution here.

It addresses one very important aspect of our health care system and providing health care to the most needy in our society. It doesn't make any difference whether you take a child to a hospital because he has a fever or a senior is being provided care in their own home or in a nursing home. This is a wake-up call for the government, not only to the millions and millions in cuts that they have made to the health care system - that is why we are in this situation.

Certainly you cannot provide an efficient, quality health care system when you have fired the most-qualified nurses to the tune of some 13,000 or 14,000 nurses. You cannot provide the quality of service when you don't have the qualified people. The people who are on the front line on a daily basis, either providing service in a hospital or home care or providing homemaker services, are the real people who on a daily basis provide the service and then come back and report on the conditions of those sick people. What happens? Often those very comments brought back are totally disregarded.

I could give you a couple of examples if I have the time, and I hope I will be able to do that.

This is not creating another snitch line; this is providing freedom from fear to those people who provide those services to come out and report incidents, lack of services, lack of attention, to the providers, so that we indeed can provide whatever care or whatever attention is needed.

One senior told me one day that one particular thing is gone from our health care system, the most sacred thing in our province. He said, "The three As are gone." I said, "What are the three As?" He said, "The availability, the acceptance and the attention." How true, because now we lack all of that, but worst of all is that the people who provide that front-line service, on top of the pressure they get because of lack of assistance, lack of personnel, have to deal on a daily basis with their frustration that they cannot report incidents, if you will, weaknesses in the system.

I know for a fact that one of these providers came into my office seeking assistance as to why she was fired - solely because she said to the providers that they need more of this particular care and more assistance. She paid for reporting that the provider should be providing that particular service there. That was one case.

I have a couple of nursing homes, maybe more, in my area, and I have to tell you that we see a problem with those care providers as well, because now we have family members going in there and saying, "What's going on here?" Care is not being provided, so family members have to go in and assist in providing for their own people, for whom they are paying extra money in those facilities. They go one day and their clothes are gone. They go another day and they are no longer on the same floor. They go another day and they are sleeping in somebody else's bed. They go one day and the nurse says, "You have to go and look for yourself; we don't have the time."

This is the care, this is the attention and that is what this resolution speaks about. It speaks about giving the freedom to those front-line caregivers, giving them the freedom without fear of reprisal to report those incidents which if gone unnoticed and not reported can result in the loss of lives of some patients. Ultimately, isn't good care for patients what we all want?

Unfortunately, I'm just over my time, but I do hope that members of the government will support the resolution introduced by the member for York South.

Mr Klees: I'm pleased to rise to address this resolution this morning. It's so typical of the member for York South. Rather than getting to the heart and recommending specific solutions, as the member for London Centre did in her Bill 50, he continues to approach the issue of health care from a fearmongering perspective for which he is well known now across the province. When the member for York South appears at a meeting, people are prepared for a great deal of noise: "The sky is falling and there is no hope."

I can tell you that the people in Ontario understand the realities. Regardless of what the member for York South and his Liberal Party may want the public to believe, we in Ontario have the best health care system in the world, second to none. All it takes is for someone to leave this province and experience elsewhere, beyond the borders of Ontario, the health care system that's there and they will very quickly support the premise that in Ontario we have the best health care system; not perfect and there's a great deal of work to do.

I can tell you that the member for York South should have spoken to Allan Rock, who was a speaker at his fundraising reception, about the $2 billion the federal government cut back in transfer payments to this province. He should also speak to the Liberal Prime Minister, who clearly doesn't understand what is happening within his own government, suggesting that the Premier of this province should restore that $2 billion.

Let the public know, and I believe they do know, that we have restored it. Not only have we restored the $2 billion without relying on the federal government, we've gone beyond that and in this province we are spending an additional $1.4 billion on health care, regardless of what the federal Liberal government is doing and their disdain for public health care in this country.

I support the concept and the member for York South knows that I support the right of health care workers to have their say, to express their views, to have the ability to tell people not only in the workplace, not only their employers, but publicly what they feel about the health care system.

I trust that the member for York South will carry on this principle of supporting the right of health care workers to exercise their consciences.

When he has an opportunity to say something in response to the debate this morning, I want the member for York South to go on record to say whether or not he supports not only the right of health care workers to express their consciences with regard to things that are going wrong in the health care system, but also the right of health care workers, consistent with the legislation that many in the health care system are calling for, to recognize the freedom of conscience of health care workers, prohibiting coercion of and unjust discrimination against health care workers because of their refusal to participate in matters contrary to the dictates of their consciences and establishing penalties for such coercion and unjust discrimination.

I don't believe for a minute that the member for York South will have the courage to support that. No. What he is interested in is for health care workers - in fact, not only is he providing a platform, he's actually encouraging them to not necessarily come forward with solutions. It's interesting, his own resolution refers to the fact that they should be publicly raising issues. There's nothing wrong with publicly raising issues, but what he is really suggesting should happen is that the rest of the people in Ontario and health care workers resort to the same kind of fearmongering that he and his political party resort to.

I want to compliment the third party, the members of the NDP, who at least on the issue of health care have a policy. They have come forward with specific recommendations. We admire that. We have no respect for the kind of rhetoric that's being brought forward here by the member for York South.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to rise to support my colleague's motion. Mr Klees and Mr Newman just mentioned fearmongering. Let me tell you about a specific case in the area that I represent. About a year and two months ago the family of a woman came to me; the wife of this man was 30 weeks pregnant. She arrived at my local hospital, which is a terrific local hospital, and had a brain hemorrhage. The hospital then began to make urgent phone calls; 21 phone calls were made here in the city of Toronto desperately trying to get her a bed to provide neurosurgery. The hospitals were aware how desperate the situation was. They were told it was critical, life-threatening.

No bed could be found for that person in the city of Toronto, and I think there are three hospitals here, maybe four, that provide the service. Finally, a Hamilton hospital said, "We'll accept this patient." Air ambulance was then phoned; air ambulance was not available. This individual was transported by land ambulance to a Hamilton hospital. When she arrived, the hospital knew that she was in desperate straits but that hospital did not do obstetrics. So another hospital in the Hamilton area had to be phoned and a doctor rushed over from that hospital to try and save the baby. The baby was saved, fortunately; the woman died.

The family said: "What should we do? We want to go public with this." I said, "Let's give the ministry an opportunity to explain what happened." They wanted to make it a public issue and I counselled - and I now regret counselling this, actually - that they try and deal with it privately. I sent the minister a letter saying, "Can you possibly explain what happened here, and importantly, can you assure the people of Ontario that this problem has been solved?" I was told that she couldn't provide an answer, that it was in the hands of a coroner.

That was over a year ago. I then sent another letter saying, "I understand it's in the hands of a coroner, but can you at least provide assurance that this won't happen again to some other individual?" I still have not had an answer on that. That's well over a year ago.

There's no explanation for this, why a woman - and it's all documented, it's all written. I can provide anybody in the province the documentation from the 21 phone calls made over a two-hour period, the knowledge that it was life-threatening and why the hospitals said they did not have the resources to open a bed.

Almost the first action that the Harris government took was to cut hospital funding. You can go back and look. It was in the fall of 1995 when Mike Harris announced they were going cut $800 million from hospitals. You can say it was the federal government, but when the federal government reduced transfers to Ontario, Mike Harris said, and I've got it here, "We publicly support it." It was Mike Harris who said to the federal government: "We support your cuts. We should cut more. We publicly endorse it."

So the very first thing that Mike Harris did was to cut hospital budgets. When Mr Newman and Mr Klees say we are scaremongering, I will go back to the tragic case of this woman in my area. The way I tried to handle it was to avoid scaremongering, was to try and deal with it privately. But now the price we pay is the minister, to this date, still has not answered the question, "Can you assure the people of Ontario that this won't happen to another person?" I've never had an answer to that. I've phoned many times, sent at least two letters to the minister, never had that answered.

I hadn't planned to raise this specific case until Mr Newman and Mr Klees started to use language such as "scaremongering." This is just simply relating the case of an individual, and as I say, I regret I didn't raise it publicly earlier because of the situation with the triplets that happened a few days ago, where the lives of the triplets were under threat. Perhaps that wouldn't have happened had we made this case more public.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Thank you for the opportunity to address this motion. At first blush this appears quite benign and innocent. As I look at some of the

preamble, it comments that "in an era of rapid change it is crucial there be sufficient information to ensure the public is protected at all times." It goes on and is basically making reference to whistle-blowing type of legislation. I think it is rather ironic that this is coming forward from the member for York South, who is in the Liberal Party. It looks like they are rolling out a platform, sort of piece by piece, rather than the leader coming forward with a position on where they stand on health care in general.

It's a party where the leader was first for and then against hospital closures. It's one where a leader has first been for and then against reopening hospitals. It's been a leader who has been first against and then for additional health care funding. It's been a leader of a party who has been first for and then against raising of taxes. One place where the leader has been consistent in health care has been silence on the improvement of long-term and community-based health care.

I would like the real leader of the Liberal Party to stand up and say what he really stands for on health care. We're still wondering. We have no idea what the position is. We see from the member for York South that their position really is coming out piece by piece.

They talk about the closure of beds. Well, who in this province started closing hospital beds? It was started by the Liberals between 1985 and 1990. The NDP screamed blue murder that it was just terrible that they would be closing hospital beds. Then what did they do between 1990 and 1995? They closed more. So between the two, in ten years 10,000 hospital beds were closed in this province, equal to 30 to 35 hospitals, but what did they do about the hospitals? They left them all open. They didn't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and do something about it.

I think it is interesting to note what has been going on federally. They started out with 50 cents per dollar for health care in this province back in the early 1970s. Where is it at today? It's at 7.6 cents on the health care dollar. If you take the average family and look at a family, we'll say, of four - two children, a mother and a father - what is it costing them in health care dollars, the real cost? It works out to just about $7,000 for that family. That's what's out of their pockets. How much is it in provincial taxes? It's about $6,500. The remainder, a pittance, comes from the federal government.

I really have to ask the member for York South. He had his fundraiser recently. The federal Minister of Health, the Honourable Allan Rock, was there, his guest speaker. When they were dancing cheek to cheek, did you ask for that $2 billion, did you ask, for the other provinces, where the other Premiers are asking, for the $6 billion that has been cut from health care since 1994? It would have been in order when you were befriending him, dancing cheek to cheek, to have asked about that $6 billion, particularly the $2 billion that has been cut from the province of Ontario.

It's interesting to read from the National Post what was recently quoted from Prime Minister Chrétien. He has challenged the provinces: "If they want to talk restoration...I will tell the premiers the same thing: Restore all your cuts and we will restore all the transfers."

I can tell the member for York South that Romanow, the NDP Premier in Saskatchewan, is quoted as saying that all the provinces have increased health care spending during this era when they have cut back the $6 billion, and we're kind of wondering and maybe you can tell us, as you're a real close friend of the Honourable Allan Rock, is the cheque in the mail? They have not cut health care spending and the Prime Minister is committed to returning this, to refunding it. I'm asking you, is the cheque in the mail?

I'm sure that in your two-minute response you will explain to us why it may not be, or if in fact it is, because being such a close friend and having him at your fundraiser, at hundreds of dollars per plate -

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): It's very interesting to listen to the government members on this very important resolution by one of the most passionate defenders of health care in this province. The government members don't want to remember the case of Mr Ed Whitehill at Peterborough Civic Hospital. He died in the hospital corridor. The nurses and the doctors at that institution wanted to talk about this government's actions that led to that tragedy. What happened?

The Ministry of Health sent in inspectors routinely, in fact in the words of the local staff, "to intimidate the health care staff." Then Health Minister Jim Wilson accused the staff of a publicity stunt around the conditions at Peterborough Civic Hospital. This is the government's actions when it comes to people who want to stand up and speak out about the impact of this government's funding reductions and funding cuts to hospitals and health care.

I think the member for Northumberland talked about community care. In my riding, in the area that I represent, which is Oriole, a part of the former North York, we have the North York Community Care Access Centre. They've been drastically underfunded. It's absolutely a shame what this government has done. It's only recently, on the verge of an election, that the government has moved in to stabilize some of the funding that the agency is under.

It's unacceptable to me that in an area like North York, like Oriole, where we have a growing and a rapidly expanding seniors population, that we have these kinds of examples. But you don't hear from the director or the staff of the CCAC because of the threat of reprisal from this government if they were to speak out, just like when Jim Wilson threatened the workers at Peterborough Civic Hospital.

It's another example, by the way, of how a rigid, inflexible funding formula can fail a community. They've done it in education; they're doing it in health care. We need resolutions like what my colleague from York South, Mr Kennedy, is proposing so that the workers, the staff and the administration at the community care access centres can speak out about the underfunding and what it's doing to their clients.

I want to spend a little bit of time - unfortunately I don't have a great deal - to talk about the impact of what's happened to the health care centre in Oriole. We have a fabulous hospital. North York General Hospital is one of the best hospitals in the province of Ontario. That's why we recognize it. But this government has seen fit in a two-year period of time to cut almost $9 million from that hospital - just unconscionable. They have the busiest emergency room in Ontario. They have massive capital needs to keep up with these kinds of pressures.

They've closed Branson Hospital. North York is taking all of the overflow. I was at a meeting with the Ontario Nurses' Association, local 5, at North York General just a short time ago, and those health care workers, those nurses, said they welcome this kind of resolution, this kind of action from the government. They support Mr Kennedy, they support this resolution, because they would like to speak out about $9 million of cuts to the place that they work, which has removed from them the ability to give care, which has demoralized them, which has put them under that strain.

That's the record of this government; that's what they've done. Whenever health care workers have stood up and wanted to speak about what their experiences are, they have been silenced, they've been threatened, and this government -

The Deputy Speaker: The member for York South has two minutes to wrap up.

Mr Kennedy: I appreciate the tribute from the members opposite in terms of at least acknowledging that the problems that are out there have to be dealt with. They would like to deny them. I heard a hopeful thread from Mr Klees, who said he would support the ability for nurses to speak out, and I would hope that test - the members today may have political disagreements with the

interpretations put on events, but I hope there is no member in this House afraid to confront the facts. They show discomfort, they show distaste, sometimes distasteful activity in the face of those facts, but I would hope in this House, this Legislature that sets the laws for this province, there is not a member of this Legislature afraid to hear what nurses and doctors have to say; who will stand behind the need for your government, for the members opposite, for this whole House to endorse the idea that this government bring in legislation that specifically makes reprisals against individuals in organizations illegal.

There was a distasteful episode in Peterborough where the former Minister of Health actually tried to blame the doctors and nurses for a publicity stunt when a patient died in a hallway. It brings no credit on the local member that he was nowhere to be found speaking on their behalf at that time.

In the instance of York-Mackenzie, there is a hospital there that has been running a deficit. There are people in the hallways. I'd be happy to discuss the veracity of that with you, member for York-Mackenzie.

The member for Northumberland would apparently like to close the hospital in Port Hope. That's what he said today, that he has the guts to close a hospital. Member, you have not talked to the health nurses and doctors in your riding to learn the real effect of closing that hospital. This would make it possible for you to hear from those people, and they would not fear reprisals.

I hope the people who would like to debate the health care issues on a political basis would invite me to their ridings, because I'm happy to respond to each one of them. Today I hope they will protect doctors and nurses and other providers' ability -

The Deputy Speaker: The time for private members' public business has expired.

HUMMINGBIRD PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE CORPORATION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DU CENTRE HUMMINGBIRD DES ARTS D'INTERPRÉTATION

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We'll deal first with ballot item number 39. Mr Silipo has moved second reading of Bill 97. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? It is carried.

Shall the bill be referred to the committee of the whole?

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Mr Speaker, I would seek unanimous consent to have the bill ordered for third reading.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed? It is agreed.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will deal now with ballot item number 40, standing in the name of Mr Kennedy. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour say "aye."

All those opposed say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Call in the members. There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1202 to 1207.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Gerretsen has moved private member's notice of motion number 36. All those in favour will please stand.

Ayes

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Kennedy, Gerard

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Martin, Tony

Patten, Richard

Pupatello, Sandra

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

The Deputy Speaker: Those opposed will please stand.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Boushy, Dave

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Danford, Harry

Elliott, Brenda

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Galt, Doug

Grimmett, Bill

Jordan, W. Leo

Klees, Frank

Leadston, Gary L.

Martiniuk, Gerry

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

O'Toole, John

Sheehan, Frank

Skarica, Toni

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 16; the nays are 25.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the resolution lost.

It being well after 12, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1210 to 1333.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): The Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee has started a "Premier Harris has scrooged Ontarians with disabilities" campaign. I would invite all members of the government caucus, if they haven't already done so, to see what's being circulated throughout Ontario even as we speak.

This campaign addresses the utter insensitivity of the Harris government to its own commitments to the disability community. Hundreds of disabled Ontarians attended a rally this past Wednesday evening where they denounced the broken promise of this government; they denounced the government's continual attempt to undermine their desire to have a barrier-free Ontario.

Ontarians with disabilities and tens of thousands, indeed millions of other Ontarians call upon the Harris government to drop their so-called Ontarians with Disabilities Act and replace it with meaningful legislation that will help to remove barriers in this province.

Those of us in the official opposition, our leader, Dalton McGuinty, and Liberals across Ontario will join the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee in fighting for a meaningful Ontarians with Disabilities Act that will help to remove barriers and make persons with disabilities full members of this great province.

RAMADAN

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I rise today to bring greetings on behalf of the NDP caucus to Ontario's Muslim community who this weekend will begin dawn-to-dusk fasting to observe the holy month of Ramadan.

For 30 days our Muslim sisters and brothers will be living a life of restraint and piety, staying away from any food and drink during the course of the day.

The exercise of Ramadan has a message for all Canadians: the sense of community, the sense of sacrifice, the sense of reaching out and relating to the hunger and deprivation that is a reality to so many millions around the world.

However, as I speak, Canada's Muslim community is undergoing a heart-wrenching experience. With the bombing of Iraq and the death and devastation that such bombing causes, Muslims around the world feel that they are victims of a double standard. Ontario's Muslims share this feeling.

On the eve of Ramadan, I'd like to assure the Muslim community that my colleagues in the NDP and I share their pain and would like to express solidarity with them in this particularly dark hour.

Inshallah, God be willing, peace shall return to Iraq and the ordeal of its people will end. I join all my NDP colleagues in condemning the US attack on the Iraqi people and wish Ontario's Muslims, Ramadan Mubarak.

DELHI BELGIAN CLUB

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): Today I would like to recognize the contributions of the Belgian community in Norfolk. Many Belgian immigrants came to North America following both the First World War and the Second World War and settled in and around the town of Delhi. The major wave followed World War II, and these Belgian Canadians formed a club in Delhi to keep their heritage, culture and language alive, the largest Belgian club in North America.

The Delhi Belgian Club celebrated its 50th anniversary this June with a gala dinner and a packed house. The club is thriving, with a new front entranceway recently built. It is a social centre for the community, with card games, archery competitions and numerous weddings.

Recently the red carpet was rolled out at the hall for the visit of his Royal Highness Crown Prince Philippe of Belgium. The 38-year old bachelor, who is trained as a fighter pilot and a paratrooper, chatted with 500 people in attendance, toured the kitchen, and took a few shots at the club's archery range. My wife and I were honoured to attend this event and help pay tribute to the contributions of the Belgian community.

The Delhi area is steeped in a diverse cultural heritage, and organizations like the Delhi Belgian Club help to keep community spirit alive. I congratulate the members of the Belgian club on their 50th anniversary, an anniversary I consider truly an impressive milestone.

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My office continues to receive letters and phone calls from college and university students who are struggling to manage because of the Mike Harris government's cutbacks to student assistance.

It's incredible that a government that has sanctioned skyrocketing tuition increases has actually cut back on student assistance instead of increasing it.

In case there is any doubt about the cutbacks, let me cite the 1998-99 estimates book, where it says quite clearly that this government is planning to spend $45 million less on student loans in 1998-99 than they spent last year, and that would be $100 million less than they spent on loans in 1996-97. The costs go up; the government provides less support.

Fortunately for students, the federal government is more than making up for Ontario's cuts to loans. But for every dollar the federal government puts into student assistance, the Ontario government cuts their funding back. There are more loans going out because more students need help, but the average loan per student is going down.

Mike Harris says student debt is not a worry. The fact is, he is just not making the loans. He wants parents to pay more, he cuts part-time students off altogether. Far too many students are finding that his cutbacks to student assistance mean they just can't go to school.

Mike Harris says that he will shut down universities if students are denied a chance to go to school because of financial need. It is the Harris government that is denying students a chance to go to school. It is time to shut the Mike Harris government down.

FRONTIERS FOUNDATION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I rise to confirm my full support for the work of the Frontiers Foundation in the small northern and rural communities across Ontario. The foundation's assistance has been crucial, particularly for aboriginal people living off reserve, for making it possible for people's housing to be upgraded and homes renovated.

The members may be aware that the living conditions for many aboriginal people in the small northern communities resemble only too well those of people living in Third World countries. This is a disgrace for our country, and Canadians owe a great debt to the groups working to improve these appalling conditions, groups like the Frontiers Foundation.

I'd like to know how much money this government has allocated to the foundation this year to assist in upgrading substandard off-reserve aboriginal housing in Ontario.

The need is urgent. For instance, an aboriginal woman recently contacted me. She is living with her brother, his spouse and their four children in one room. I understand that the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation has committed about $20,000 total to the Frontiers Foundation through the Ontario Native Aboriginal Association for one or two home renovations.

The foundation already has a waiting list of over 40 families who require housing. The government has demonstrated its willingness to meet the emergency needs of ice storm victims in eastern Ontario last year. Surely the government will ensure that the urgent need for improved off-reserve aboriginal housing is also met.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): Businesses across Canada and Ontario wanting access to the world's fastest-growing economy should look no further than Welland and the Niagara region.

Recently Welland's mayor, Dick Reuter, and the chair of the regional municipality of Niagara signed an historic agreement with the mayor of Tongxiang in China's burgeoning Shanghai-Yangzi delta region. The agreement, signed during a high-level Chinese mission to Niagara, establishes a one-of-a-kind unique partnership and paves the way for lucrative joint ventures in a variety of industrial sectors.

It continues Welland's leadership in initiating trade agreements and ensuring local companies enjoy secure access to China's booming economy. It is also an example of how local government and business can work together to ensure international success.

The mission resulted from previous contacts made by Rudy Kroeker of Whiting Industries, Welland. Whiting operates a successful joint venture in Tongxiang which will soon be mirrored by other Welland businesses. In fact, Whiting Industries has just hired 12 engineers, a direct result of this joint venture.

The Tongxiang-Yangzi delta region has China's third-highest per capita gross domestic product, representing 25% of the entire Chinese economy - bigger than Malaysia, Argentina and Sweden.

Welland and Niagara's business community have secured a preferred access to this region, something that many other municipalities cannot do.

RIDE PROGRAM

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I rise today to protest yet another dilemma in which municipalities have been placed by this government. On the one hand, it has cracked down with more stringent laws for drunk drivers, which I applaud, but on the other hand, it's backing down on funding for enforcement.

In my community of Ottawa-Carleton, for example, the region's RIDE program has been practically decimated, reduced by more than 50% as a result of severe cutbacks in provincial grants that fund the program.

A traffic sergeant today was quoted as saying: "The amount available has gone down each year.... We get less money for the region than we got just for the city of Ottawa three years ago."

We all know the importance of the RIDE program over the festive season, especially as a deterrent. While we have made many strides with young people who are quite diligent about appointing a designated driver, we know that other drivers continue to take chances, and a certain group repeatedly takes chances, often with serious consequences.

Further, from today's Ottawa Sun: "In the past two weeks in Ottawa-Carleton area, police have stopped 4,784 vehicles and laid nine impaired-driving charges. Twelve people have been killed in Ontario in alcohol-related accidents this month."

If we ever hope to minimize drunk driving, enforcement funding must not be jeopardized.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): It would appear that the government is handing the commercial sector in our community a ticking time bomb when it comes to what this latest fiasco has done with property taxes.

As we look at what the government has done in regard to the cap, it would appear that those people who got a decrease last year in their municipal taxes, when it comes to commercial-industrial assessment, are not going to be doing as well as they think they are come 1999 when they get their interim tax bill. I think that this government has mishandled this whole tax assessment system to the point that they have thrown the entire system into chaos. We are probably going to see next year those people who got a decrease in 1998 having a tax increase based on their 1997 assessment and, in addition to that, on any savings they would have got in 1998.

Pure and simple, if you got a tax break last year because of the reassessment on the part of the new AVA system, you're going to see next year a huge tax increase, courtesy of Mike Harris, as a little Christmas present to start off 1999.

VOLUNTEERS

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): It is my pleasure to rise in the House today to give a special thanks to Gus Christopher and members of the Greek Orthodox Church on Harder Drive in Quinte West.

Each year these volunteers prepare and serve a Christmas dinner to less fortunate members of our community. Last year they served 320 constituents of mine, some of whom otherwise might not have had the means to enjoy a traditional Christmas feast. Many others who find themselves alone on Christmas day came to enjoy the festive atmosphere.

The selfless efforts exhibited by the volunteers represent the true Christmas spirit of kindness and compassion: individuals taking care of one another not out of obligation but out of a genuine concern for others.

As we go about our daily business this last hectic week before Christmas, I hope the members of the Legislature will remember the example set by the Greek community in my riding of Quinte.

On Christmas Day, Bridge Street church is the setting of another example of volunteers in my community. They gather together for a sit-down dinner at 12 noon served by volunteers.

I personally would like to express, on behalf of members of this Legislature, a very deep thanks to all the people in the Quinte area who volunteer unselfishly at Christmas time to serve others.

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Thank you for this brief point of order, if you'll indulge me, Mr Speaker: Last night in this House we had the opportunity to be debating the supply bill, and I was very disappointed that there were comments coming from the government whip that evening that suggested I might go somewhere on a broomstick. My disappointment is that if there were, for example, a male equivalent of that kind of remark, there could have been a very funny retort to it.

The point is, in keeping with the kind of debate we had, what we view was inappropriate use of monies and specifically how it affects women in Ontario, that I found that kind of remark made towards me especially inappropriate given the context of the debate.

I would like to give the opportunit