CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (CONCLUDED)
CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF CITIZENSHIP AND CULTURE
The House resumed at 8 pm.
CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (CONCLUDED)
Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, when we were last dealing with the concurrences of the Ministry of the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor), I had the floor and was discussing the case of the young Cornwall girl, which has now become famous -- or infamous -- and certainly confused because of the alleged rape, the alleged difficulties with the children's aid society, the alleged abortion and now the alleged investigations that have taken place.
I use that term advisedly, because I am more and more convinced that the way this matter has been dealt with from the beginning of this whole process has caused a great deal of confusion and is putting at risk the reputations of a number of individuals: the integrity of the police, the integrity of the children's aid society, perhaps even the integrity of the children's aid society lawyer and certainly the integrity of the child and of other witnesses who have given information.
In speaking to the minister's response to the question from the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) yesterday, I will not repeat the concerns the honourable member tried to raise with the minister, but I want to draw the minister's attention to an example of what I think we have been through in this whole process. I refer to the column in today's Sun by Claire Hoy about the whole inflammation, if I may call it that, of this issue, the assertion of facts on several sides, all of which I find questionable or contradictory. The real danger is that we will never get to the bottom of this.
The headline of that article says, "'15-Year-Old Wasn't Raped.'" It is absolute. I presume that is as a result of the police investigation yesterday which indicated they felt there was no cause to pursue the issue further and "no proper basis on which to lay a charge" and insufficient reason to get in touch with the crown.
In the next paragraph, Claire Hoy says, "Indeed, Taylor said there is evidence to suggest the girl 'was pregnant before the alleged rape.'" This information was not included in the statement or answer to the question made in the House by the Solicitor General but was offered outside.
I have personally had access to information that would contradict that statement. I do not wish to assert that I am right or that the Solicitor General is wrong. I do not even want to suggest some of the assertions I have heard from other honourable members, that the greatest mistake made in the process was the placement with this particular foster family. I have heard that stated and that there are great rumblings about in the community.
There are substantial questions that still need to be answered in terms of the children's aid society's role in the access to abortion for this 15-year-old girl, whether or not a rape was involved. There is a very serious need to investigate alleged leaks of information that supposedly has come either from CAS files or from medical files about this young girl, and which may or may not have been used in the decision of the police that it was not worth while or that there was not enough evidence of rape. We are not sure from the Solicitor General's statement.
There is a need for a major discussion with the doctors involved in this case: the first family doctor, the psychiatrist and the second family doctor. I think there is conflicting evidence presented there. There is certainly a need for someone to be investigating the role of the CAS-appointed lawyer in this whole matter, specifically around taking action on the abortion question.
The absolute statement we were given by the Solicitor General, that there was no rape involved, is one that I find very difficult to accept categorically under the circumstances, given the information I have seen elsewhere and coming as it has from what I would call a relatively in-house investigation of the police action.
I want to make a suggestion to the minister tonight and ask for his response to it. I think it is necessary that we have a third-party inquiry into all these matters. I am not going to suggest that it be a judicial inquiry, although that may be an option the Solicitor General in his wisdom may wish to initiate. I am going to suggest that this case, with the questions that arise from it in terms of a 15-year-old child who is in the care and custody of the CAS and the police department, is crucial.
I suggest the appointment of someone like Judge George Thomson to do an independent investigation of all the matters concerning this case. If he could report back in a fixed time, which we could not get with a judicial inquiry, it would be very helpful in clearing up this case. It might provide a bit of distance away from the allegation and counterallegation being made in the community and here at Queen's Park.
8:10 p.m.
I suggest someone like Judge George Thomson for two reasons, or maybe more. He has qualifications as an expert in children's services. As members may know, he was a family court judge who left the bench to become assistant deputy minister to the then Minister of Community and Social Services, now the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton). He was responsible for the overhauling of children's services. In so doing, he gained a great and profound understanding of the role of children's aid societies, the whole question of child abuse and the responsibility and proper procedures involved in that.
As the minister probably knows, the judge now is back on the bench and is working primarily in the court in Etobicoke. He has a great understanding of legal proceedings, of how evidence should be collected and presented and of proper policing. He would bring to this whole matter a reputation which I suggest is unsullied and beyond question; and I am raising this as a member of the opposition who had to deal with him during estimates from time to time. He is someone whose experience in these matters cannot be doubted or questioned in any way.
If the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of the Solicitor General could agree to do this together, it would put a halt to my concerns about the methodology being used by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) in terms of his investigation. Certainly it would allay some of my concerns about the gaps -- the things the Solicitor General felt he was not able to respond to in this House yesterday.
It would give us a bit of time to step back from this and perhaps would give us a chance to put this in terms of policy and philosophy. If it were not a judicial inquiry, I would hope it would be something on which they could report back to us in due course so as to have the matter cleared up once and for all.
That is my first suggestion, and I would like the minister to respond at the end of these concurrences.
The second matter I want to raise was brought up by the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick). It is causing me great and deep concern. I hope the minister will respond to the concerns he raised so eloquently and carefully last night, and I hope I will be as careful about this. I come at it from perhaps a nonlegalistic and different point of view.
The peace movement in the western world has blossomed in the past five years, especially during the past couple of years. Besides reading our own press, some members may read the Manchester Guardian to get another point of view of the way things operate in the world. In Europe, there is constant coverage of the peace movement.
The initiatives of the peace movement are seen as valid initiatives of people who are concerned about the future of mankind. They are almost entirely pacifists, who wish for our children and future generations more security than we have today, especially with the growth and proliferation of weapons like the cruise and MX missiles.
Even in the United States of America, the home of Ronald "Let's Build a Missile Every Day" Reagan, we have seen an enormous growth in the numbers and prestige of the peace movement. Yes, there have been attempts to try to paint it commie red. But when one looks at the basic middle-class components of that movement, one sees the huge numbers of women who are involved. Perhaps they are more sensitive to this issue than we males, who have been socialized to consider ourselves warriors and to see some value in war and who perhaps can delude ourselves into believing the possibility of having limited nuclear wars.
Even in the United States we have seen this amazing growth. It was starting in Canada; it was developing with loose coalitions, with all sorts of groups operating across the country in a very ad hoc fashion putting pressure on municipal governments to put on referenda. As a reflection of those referenda, we saw there was great concern in the country about the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Then one day a group of violent anarchists, one has to presume, decided it would bomb Litton Systems. Almost immediately after that, the peace movement disavowed that kind of action, said that was totally the wrong means with which to raise the issue and tried as much as it could to indicate it absolutely abhorred that kind of action.
The police did not have many leads. The police had problems, as is often the case with terrorist activities. They had difficulty getting a place to start. I think all the evidence is in now that they went on a fishing expedition. They went to the various peace organizations in Ontario and made raids. If one reads the way the member for Riverdale outlined that last night, one will see they got warrants on some of the most spurious pretenses, in my view.
One starts by saying people who are nonviolent are members of Direct Action. That is playing around with the facts. In my view, that is presenting information to a judge, to a justice of the peace or to somebody who has to make this decision and basically saying one has information these people are involved with Direct Action. We know what Direct Action is; that is the name given to that particular group of anarchists.
In my view, that was done in the most thoughtless fashion. What has taken place has been the undermining of the reputation of the peace movement. All sorts of information has been taken, as well as typewriters and typewriter ribbons; all their files and all the names of the people who have signed petitions or who have been involved with them in various peace movements. God knows, my name must have been on those lists, because I signed a number of petitions, as have other members of this House.
Mr. Gordon: You would sign anything.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: I probably would sign anything that was trying to stop nuclear war; the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) is probably right. But I am discriminatory in what I sign or do not sign.
Mr. Gordon: As a matter of fact, I am not for nuclear war either. You don't take a balanced view.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: That was a helpful interjection.
There are questions of civil liberties for all of us in this country when the police investigate this kind of situation. Arrests have been made in British Columbia. I may be corrected on this, as I have not read the papers today, but as yet there have been no charges laid against anybody in terms of Litton, not even in British Columbia. The member for Sudbury should read the perhaps less impassioned but more methodical approach the member for Riverdale took on this thing.
Statements have been made by various police officers which indicate we are about to have arrests at any moment in Ontario, and there is some indication these people are going to be involved in the peace movement. None of those arrests has taken place.
Mr. Gordon: Isn't it a shame that the police would even look? Imagine, the would even go out and investigate. Such a shame.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a debate. I will not caution the member any further.
Mr. Boudria: Jimmy for Solicitor General.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am glad the honourable member is not in the lineup for the cabinet and especially not for that position, because a Solicitor General has to be very careful about civil liberties. As the person who is in charge of the police in this province, he perhaps has the hardest role to play in terms of the protection of civil liberties.
8:20 p.m.
I am suggesting there is evidence that the bounds of acceptable practices have been overstepped in this case. There are people whose reputations have been sullied and, unless some action is going to be taken and there is some indication that there was more meat to that investigation and more right to go into those people's homes than into my home to take information, they deserve an apology. They deserve some kind of a statement that it was done in desperation, in the hope of providing leads, but they have not had that. There should be some kind of clarification, but there has not been; nor, as I understand it, has there been a return of all the material that had been taken from people's homes or offices.
It may be important to get this group of anarchists, and I believe it is, because that kind of violent act is unacceptable in our society. But considering the importance of the role in our lives and the future of this planet that the peace movement can and is trying to play, the kind of undermining of its prestige that has taken place in this matter is just unacceptable.
The Solicitor General should do one of two things. Either he should come forward and say, "We have evidence. It is not all in yet, but we have evidence and will be moving on it, and you are damned wrong, Johnston, on this matter"; or he should be saying, "There has been no connection between them at all," and that those people have been unfairly singled out because they happened to have sat in at Litton Industries, and happened to advocate that we should not be building cruise missiles in this country, which is something I believe profoundly.
I think this matter has to be cleared up. I hope the Solicitor General will do something towards clearing it up tonight.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to address myself to concurrence in supply for the Ministry of the Solicitor General. I want to go back to an issue I raised a few years ago in a special resolution in the House which was carried by all parties. It was a resolution during private members' public business to establish Firefighters' Memorial Sunday. The resolution read:
"That in the opinion of this House the government of Ontario should introduce legislation proclaiming the first Sunday in October, in each year, as Firefighters' Memorial Sunday, in recognition of service to country and community, a special tribute to an extraordinary group of Ontarians, who have made a supreme sacrifice for the safety and wellbeing of their fellow Canadians and to provide the opportunity to inform Ontario citizens about their province's most dangerous profession and create awareness of Fire Prevention Week."
I attended the installation of firemen at companies 3, 4 and 6 in Fort Erie this past month. Some excellent plaques were presented to long-service volunteer firemen in the community who had spent some 35 to 40 years as volunteers. I thought these bronze plaques from the ministry responsible for the office of the fire marshal were rather nice. I thought it was a great gesture to say, "Here is something we can give you for your dedication in providing safety and help in any emergency in the community."
A story reporting the results of a Gallup poll printed on January 22, 1983, in the Welland Tribune was headlined, "Fire Protection Tops, Say Many Canadians." The story read: "When Canadians were asked about the value of six specific services, fire protection topped the list, with 87 per cent stating they received good value from this service. Following closely behind, however, are medicare, 86 per cent, garbage collection, 83 per cent, and the police, 79 per cent."
In the poll on fire protection taken in Ontario, 91 per cent said they received excellent service. That gives some indication of the importance firefighters play in the municipalities.
I hope with the minister's good wishes -- I know he is concerned about the firefighters in the province -- he will come forward and dedicate one special day, Firefighters' Memorial Sunday, perhaps in the first week in October, to remind citizens of the value these men provide to a municipality in any emergency. I thought I would bring that to his attention.
The other concern I have is that I have a residence here in Toronto in an apartment building. One night the alarm system went off. I would hardly have heard it if I had been watching television, but I happened to hear the sirens of the fire department responding to the call. If any member in the House has been a volunteer fireman, he knows you respond to the need realizing there may be a serious problem.
I opened the patio door and looked out. Sure enough, there was the rig sitting at the front. I could smell plastic burning. I thought I had better take a look. I went in and opened the other door. Everybody was scrambling. I thought I had better move on. I opened the door next to the stairwell and had to close it because there was nothing but dense smoke.
I do not know how any person in a high-rise building would be able to find the stairwells to get to safety. In some high-rise buildings there might be only two stairwells, one on each side of the building.
After the fire, I thought I would go and look at the scene. It occurred to me that each level should be numbered. I brought this to the attention of the superintendent of the building. I noticed numbers had been painted, but painting is not good enough. There should be some type of metal sign indicating the floors. A person coming down from one floor might be a little frightened or hysterical and, instead of going down, might go up.
Also, I suggest consideration should be given to the stairwells having handrails on both sides so that a person can take hold of something and feel his way down, because there might not be any lights or anything to suggest where he is. In high-rise buildings there should be emergency lighting on these stairwells so persons can at least find their way down.
I remind members what happened at Plaza II, where a senior person lost his life trying to escape from the fire. I am looking forward to the minister listening to some of the firemen's suggestions on how to improve fire safety in high-rise buildings. It is scary and frightening when firefighters have to respond to such fires, because in many cases there is a disadvantage. How does a firefighter get to the 25th or 26th floor? Elevators may not even be working.
I also suggest a good test should be run on the hoses in the fire protection system. The one-and-a-half-inch lines in some buildings should be tested to see whether they will stand the pressure required.
It has been brought to my attention by firefighters that sometimes they have to go into a building while carrying two 50-foot lengths of hose in a pack up to the floor because they may not trust the hose lines provided for emergency fire protection. Sometimes the standby system is the only source of water supply they can get in these high-rise buildings. I bring that to the attention of the minister.
Another suggestion I would make to the minister is one I have raised on a number of occasions concerning police cost-sharing with the federal government. I understand 10 years or so ago there was talk about the province not being able to get financial assistance from the federal government. After all, the police forces and local police commissions have to police the federal laws and so on.
I do not think there is too much assistance given to local police commissions or to this province in sharing some of that cost. With increasing costs, it is becoming rather expensive, particularly in the Niagara region. Much of that cost now is being borne by local property owners. I do not have to remind members that taxes are going up year after year.
I feel there is a responsibility in cost-sharing with the federal government on matters of policing some of the federal laws, etc. I hope the minister will be putting forth stronger bargaining positions with the federal government so that some assistance will be provided in this area.
I support the member for Riverdale, who mentioned the new open gun holster. It is a good type of gun holster. It provides safety to the policeman and to the public. The butt of the gun may be showing, but sometimes the butt of the gun may show a little bit more authority in the sense that some criminals may have more respect when they see that weapon showing. I think it is a good approach. It is a good holster and it does provide safety measures on both sides.
8:30 p.m.
I am concerned about the recent announcement by the federal government of a study done on the 200,000 or 300,000 illegal immigrants in Canada. I have never heard this matter raised in the House and I am concerned about it. We do not know exactly how many are wanted criminals. Who questions whether they would be good citizens or not? If they are in Canada illegally, one has to question that first. Are they good citizens? Do we want the type of citizens who violates one of the first laws when they enter Canada?
On the American side they have one month a year. I think it is January, when aliens have to register. I suggest to the minister this approach should be taken here, because many of them may have criminal backgrounds and I am sure we do not want that type of person here. Perhaps they may be undesirable. I do not know what area the minister is looking at. Has he done any study in this area? What research has he done on it?
It is amazing that if there are 200,000 to 300,000 illegal immigrants -- and we are not quite sure; there could be 500,000 people in Canada illegally -- when I think of the massive unemployment here in Canada, there must be 500,000 or 300,000 or 200,000 people in Canada illegally who are taking jobs that should be there for Canadians. This is a serious problem and the minister and his counterpart in Ottawa and the other ministers throughout the provinces should be tackling it.
I think it says in the report we should give them amnesty. I do not know if that is the right approach or not. I do not think it is under the circumstances. Many people want to come to Canada legally, but when they have to go through the proper procedures they find it rather difficult. It is not fair that we should have 200,000 or 300,000 or 500,000 illegal immigrants. I do not know how many there are in Ontario. I bring that to the attention of the minister.
During the past week we were asked to support government measures in the takeover of Seaway Trust, Crown Trust and Greymac Trust. I felt it rather difficult to support such measures as the government wanted to bring forward, because it puts me in a position where I have to support the government in taking over these companies and bringing in the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. to bail out the depositors. That is what it is there for: protection.
But this puts me in a position where, by letting the government take over these companies, I am supporting the scam. That is the way I feel about this legislation. It is taking over the private sector without due process of law and there are no charges laid.
I am looking at the comments of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie). He said: "The purpose of the act is to have the mortgage loans totalling approximately $152 million made by the three trust companies in connection with the Cadillac Fairview sale rescinded on the grounds that they were procured by conspiracy, misrepresentation and breaches of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act. As a result of the breaches and this action the trust companies seek to trace the moneys advanced under these loans and to recover them for the benefit of the trust companies.
"As part of the claims being made, the defendants are being asked to account for moneys received and the court is being asked for a declaration that such moneys are impressed for the trust in favour of the plaintiff companies. Other relief is also being claimed."
The question I bring to the attention of the minister is, if there is conspiracy and misrepresentation -- the word "fraud" is not in this document, but if there is fraud I do not know what involvement the ministry has in this area or what its investigations have been to date. Are any criminal charges pending or will any be laid? This is an area I am deeply concerned about.
Has the minister given any consideration to asking the federal government to remove passports so that if there is any fraud or conspiracy these persons will not fly the coop and go to another country? It is rather frightening to hear that one of the players in the game has said there is money stashed away in a bank in the West Indies. I suppose it is worth while to fly the coop with $152 million and not have to be accountable for it.
I hope the minister will let us know the extent of his ministry's involvement at the present time and whether any criminal charges are pending.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I realize there is very little time left and that some of my colleagues may want some response to the questions raised.
Mr. Speaker: There are 16 minutes left.
Mr. Roy: As you know, Mr. Speaker, I do not need 16 minutes to tell the minister some of the failings of his ministry. Maybe I should just take five minutes and tell him.
First of all, I understand he is the new minister in a portfolio once held by the present Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry). He seems to be intimidated somewhat by our good friend Roy and to be taking a very low profile in areas which really are his responsibility. I just want to say that George should not let himself be pushed around.
Mr. Foulds: It is Norm Sterling who is pushing him around. He is the Provincial Secretary for Justice.
Mr. Roy: I appreciate that his boss, the Provincial Secretary for Justice, the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) is keeping a close eye on the minister and that the Attorney General may be keeping a short leash on him as well, because he is the former Solicitor General.
Mr. Bradley: And if there is a headline to be got, Roy will be sure to get it.
Mr. Roy: That is right. I think the minister deserves a few headlines himself. After all, as Solicitor General he is in charge of the whole police force in Ontario. He is the boss and should not let the Attorney General take all the credit and get all the headlines.
For instance, the investigation into the Hospital for Sick Children by the police should be the Solicitor General's responsibility, not the responsibility of the Attorney General; and also the investigation by the Ontario Provincial Police of the famous Proverbs case. We are still waiting for the report of the investigation and the Attorney General is the one responding in this case.
The minister should tell him: "The police are my job, Roy. You take care of the crown attorneys, the judges and the administration of justice. The police are my job. I want a headline once in a while too." The minister should not be afraid. George should not be bashful about it. We understand he is a nice fellow, but he is, after all, equal to Roy. He gets equal pay, the same cheque and he should accept his responsibility and not be bashful about it.
Mr. Speaker: May I have the honourable member's attention, please? I would ask him to refer to the members either by riding or by ministry.
Mr. Roy: You will understand, Mr. Speaker, that out of a deep sense of affection for some of my colleagues, I sometimes slip up on that long-standing and important principle in this House. It is not out of cynicism, but out of a sense of affection that I refer to George or Roy or whatever. It is basically because I have a bad memory and I do not remember what riding they represent.
Mr. Speaker: One is the Attorney General and the other is the Solicitor General.
Mr. Roy: Yes. I was trying to tell the Solicitor General that he is equal to the Attorney General. The Speaker agrees he is equal to the Attorney General, so he should not be bashful about his responsibility.
The other thing I want to say to the Solicitor General, just briefly, is that obviously he watched that very famous trial which took place from March 1982 and was resolved in August or September 1982. It was presided over by His Honour Judge McWilliam. He was receiving evidence in an attempt to make a determination as to whether the accused had some involvement with an organization called -- I say this with due deference to my colleagues -- the Mafia.
8:40 p.m.
This evidence was called over a number of months by apparently expert witnesses. Judge McWilliam, in August or September 1982, came to the conclusion there was a ruthless secret society called N'Drina, which runs organized crime operations in Hamilton, Toronto and Montreal. He made that finding a fact although he said the accused, in his opinion, did not have any association with this crime organization.
I point this out to the minister because he will recall it has been standard policy on the part of the minister, the commissioner and the Ontario Provincial Police to consistently declare there is no such organization, there is no Mafia or organized crime in Ontario.
The expert witness was cross-examined about July 1982. The statement of former OPP Commissioner Graham was put to the witness to the effect that the Mafia did not exist in Ontario, that there was no such thing as organized crime in Ontario.
Inspector Dino Chiaro stated that what the commissioner of the OPP had said was what he termed to be "a politically acceptable statement." I would like to get the Attorney General's view on that. Does he agree with the statement of Judge McWilliam in this trial that such an organization does exist?
Mr. Speaker: The Attorney General is not here. The Solicitor General is here.
Mr. Roy: Did I say Attorney General? I apologize, Mr. Speaker. It is force of habit. Even I make mistakes.
An hon. member: You've wakened the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon).
Mr. Roy: That's right, Mr. Speaker. I take great pride, if in nothing else at this time of night, 8:45, that I have wakened a few Conservative back-benchers. That is important at this time.
Does the Solicitor General agree with Judge McWilliams finding? What steps is he going to take to combat this association or what is called the ruthless secret society now that Judge McWilliam has made that finding? Is he going to continue perpetuating this myth that there is no such society in Ontario?
Mr. Bradley: I would like to know how the chief of police in Niagara is paid $75,000.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I will try to respond in the very short time left to me, roughly six minutes, to the two hours or so that the opposition members have had to discuss the concurrences of the Ministry of the Solicitor General.
I must say I am very pleased when I get comments from the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty), in another area of the portfolio of the Solicitor General in that it also includes the police, the firefighters, the operations of coroners, emergency measures and some other areas. When a member gets off the topic of policing it is rather gratifying that he recognizes the ministry does do some other areas.
When one listens to the member for Erie talking about a Firefighters' Memorial Sunday he is aware that we do recognize the firefighters. He said the ministry had presented them, through the Ontario fire marshal's office, with some plaques for service and bravery. He is also aware that there is the Ontario Medal for firefighters for bravery, and for the police side of it.
One feature I take great pride in being able to participate in is a ceremony we have had once or twice a year since I have had this portfolio. It is held at the Ontario Fire College in Gravenhurst, where we present the 30-year good conduct, long service medals to the firefighters as well as recognizing the spouses of the firefighters. The member, having been a volunteer, knows and recognizes in full the service the wives have to pay with persons who have had a shift job existence for 30 years.
I am pleased to make those presentations. I think the officers are gratified to receive the recognition, because when one has worked on shift work over those long 30 years of service, and that means both volunteers as well as others because sometimes they perform a double function in many of our communities, that recognition is often not given quickly enough or often enough to the people who perform that task. When the member says a memorial Sunday that has a certain ring I am satisfied to hear.
The member mentioned some of the features of high-rises. I would like to bring this to his attention. I am sure he is aware we do have ongoing at the present time Judge Webber's commission that is studying emergency measures which might be taken in a high-rise to prevent fires, to exit during a fire and as to how people conduct themselves in a fire in a high-rise building.
We have seen many occurrences where it results in death and injury. We have the commission now and, like all commissions, it started out thinking it was not going to be too long or too arduous a task but one that might be finished in a short period of time. However, the judge has asked for an extension and for funds to do further research, but I think --
Mr. Haggerty: As long as it is not $800 a day.
Hon. G. W. Taylor: No, it is not $800 a day. That is the federal operation. We do not have those kinds of dollars here in the provincial area.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson): Order.
Hon. G. W. Taylor: Naturally, we would like to receive that report as soon as possible, with the thoroughness necessary to prevent fires and to give a greater degree of safety to the people who live in those high-rise buildings.
I will get back to the comments made initially by the member for Yorkview (Mr. Spensieri). They blend into some other individuals' remarks, particularly those of the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) who was commenting on the different duties. The member for Yorkview asked a specific question as to why the Attorney General institutes some investigations.
There is a simple enough explanation. Under the Police Act, there is a section whereby the crown attorneys may cause an investigation to be commenced. One gets a reverse relationship in that the crown attorneys are the agents of the Attorney General, and thus, as has been seen in the last couple of occurrences, the Attorney General and the crown attorneys have been concerned and have initiated an investigation.
There are many investigations initiated by police forces, some of which I may bring to their attention. I may remind them of some. They are not all done with large press releases. They are not all of outstanding note to require attention from the media, but from time to time we initiate police investigations.
I guess that is one of the greatest difficulties I have in presenting myself to answer questions in this Legislature on these things. I know the member for Yorkview was concerned about that, but I cannot in my position as Solicitor General always be seeking headlines, as the member for Ottawa East would like me to. Just the opposite is necessary for this ministry because there are many situations where one cannot give a play-by-play, colour commentary on what is an ongoing investigation.
An example might be an allegation that arson took place and thus some evidence might have disappeared; the alleged arson might have been created to remove evidence. If I came here each day and said, "By the way, we are doing this investigation of these people and these industries," and gave a list of them and answered questions from the opposition parties, much of the investigations, the time, the energy, the expertise and the knowledge of the situation would soon become commonplace.
8:50 p.m.
I am informed by the police and by my advisers that it is often most difficult to complete an investigation even when it is kept secret. There are enough counter measures to watch what is taking place in the surveillance. Those in the field of organized crime have very sophisticated methods today. They are using sophisticated equipment and people with a great deal of learning and capability. One cannot answer questions on a daily basis in this Legislature as to the extent and the preciseness of an ongoing investigation. When it is completed, and if there is sufficient evidence, then criminal charges will be laid.
I apologize for not having time to answer all the questions that have been presented.
The Acting Speaker: The time allotted for debate has expired.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, may we have unanimous consent to give the minister another five minutes?
lnterjections.
The Acting Speaker: No, there is not unanimous consent.
Mr. Roy: The record should show that the opposition came from the Conservative members.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The record should show that the Solicitor General did not respond to any of the items raised by the critic for the New Democratic Party, the member for Riverdale. Instead, he talked about other things that were not quite as controversial as some of the things we wanted answers to.
The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order but is certainly a point of interest, which I am sure will be reflected in the record.
Resolution concurred in.
CONSIDERATION OF BILL 127
Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I know this may be a bit irregular, but over the last week and a half there have been a large number of people in the public galleries because of their concern over Bill 127. Could you allow this House to spend at least half an hour talking about a bill that is so important to the people who have come to the galleries night after night?
Hon. Mr. Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would also like the record to show that there has been no concerted demand by either of the opposition parties to have this bill discussed in the House.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the government House leader would be good enough to inform the House and the galleries that the government is not going to proceed with Bill 127.
Hon. Mr. Wells: I would be happy to repeat what we discussed at the House leaders' meeting this morning, which is that probably next week the government will proceed with the legislation on the Order Paper, Bill 127, Bill 138 and Bill 177.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson): If that was a point of order, it has been well addressed. Does the member for Ottawa Centre have a new point?
Mr. Cassidy: I do, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate you do not control the business of the House. It is up to the government House leader, so perhaps he would wear, on behalf of all the people concerned, a label saying, "Stop Bill 127."
The Acting Speaker: Order. I am sure the member for Ottawa Centre knows the procedure for sending a message across the floor of the House to the government House leader.
[Interruption]
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, just to reply to that point of order, I would like to thank my friend for his generosity, but I will be supporting and voting for Bill 127.
[Interruption]
Mr. Rotenberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would ask you to enforce the rules of this House. There should be no demonstrations in the galleries, despite the obvious political provocation from the members opposite.
Mr. Foulds: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, heaven forbid that the Ontario Legislature should deal with matters that are political.
The Acting Speaker: I was waiting for a propitious moment to draw to the attention of all honourable members and of our visitors in the galleries that the standing orders clearly prohibit any type of demonstration or participation in the debate from any part of the public galleries. I am given authority by the standing orders to clear the galleries if it becomes necessary. I do not think it will be necessary among reasonable people at this time, but I am obliged in the first instance to issue that caution.
CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF CITIZENSHIP AND CULTURE
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak briefly on the concurrence in supply of the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture. It is not my intention to rehash the estimates of this ministry, nor to deal in great detail with those matters that have come before the committee concerning the McMichael Canadian Collection or the cost overruns at the gallery. If there is a necessity for that, I am sure my friend the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) will be prepared to participate. I understand he has ably participated in committee, pointing out the problems that have arisen there.
Members will be interested to know it is not my intention, as I think my friends in the New Democratic Party anticipated, to mention Bill 127 when I stood up. They wanted to make sure they had an opportunity to get on ahead and gain the necessary accolades from those who are on that side.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson): Order.
Mr. Bradley: They will apologize for that, I know.
The Acting Speaker: I ask the member for St. Catharines to address himself to the order for concurrence.
Mr. Bradley: I am most certainly prepared to do that, because I really believe the government is giving considerable thought to Bill 127. We might well not have the opportunity, one never knows, of dealing with that bill. I sense there is something going on on the other side on that issue. There is a good deal of debate and thought going on, both within the cabinet and the caucus. It might well be there have been sufficient second thoughts to ensure that reason will prevail and the bill will be withdrawn. However, that is not what I am here to speak about.
The Acting Speaker: I am sure it is not and that you are now going to speak to the matter before us.
Mr. Bradley: Another very important matter right across Ontario is the potential 15 per cent cutback on the allocation for the Ontario Arts Council and, generally speaking, the declining amount of money that will be available to the arts in the province this year. In times of economic difficulty, many recognize that often the first things to go are those that some in the population consider to be the frills, and those, some would say, are the arts, the cultural activities in this province which would be the subject of cutbacks, in some cases of a crippling nature.
Many in this House, including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) and the member for Quinte (Mr. O'Neil), who is the critic in the field of Citizenship and Culture in Ontario, along with members of the New Democratic Party, have risen in the House to implore the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Mr. McCaffrey) not to implement cutbacks. I recognize it could be a very difficult decision for him, but it also would be a wrong decision on his part and on the part of his cabinet to reduce the amount of funding that might be available to the arts and to cultural activities in this province.
Many of us have received letters from those who are directly involved. For instance, in the Niagara Peninsula we have the Shaw Festival. Many members of the government have trooped down to Niagara-on-the-Lake for their think tanks or whatever they call it when the Tory cabinet and the chosen few get together to discuss matters of great importance. No doubt they have taken the opportunity to attend a play at the Shaw Festival.
9 p.m.
It is something of which the people of Niagara- on-the-Lake are particularly proud. I am sure the member for Brock (Mr. Welch) would agree with me if he were here this evening. We as a province, as a nation, are proud of that kind of cultural activity, of the expression which is permitted through the arts, at Niagara-on-the-Lake.
We do not just talk about Stratford, Niagara-on-the-Lake and other what we could call professional activities that take place. We speak also, and I guess most appropriately, about those smaller groups which are so reliant on government. They attempt to generate a lot of their own funding through activities they carry out, the admissions they charge and so on. They are often the first to ask to participate in that way in funding their own activities. But even so, these smaller, growing groups -- the seed groups -- are the ones that require the assistance of government to get going and to maintain themselves in the various communities across this province.
The City of St. Catharines Chamber of Commerce has luncheons from time to time to which guests are invited, often from the provincial level of jurisdiction. We have had the head of the Ontario Arts Council extolling the virtues of the activities of the Ontario government on behalf of the arts. Indeed, on some occasions the government is to be complimented for its support in certain areas of cultural activities.
So I would like to look at it in a more positive than negative vein. Rather than talking about cutbacks I would implore the minister to look at ways of increasing the participation of the provincial government in the field of culture through funding. It is very difficult in tough economic times to generate funds for the arts from individuals and the private sector. It is easier in what we would call boom economic times.
Therefore at this time, so that these groups can carry on their activities and we can maintain the cultural base in this province, it requires some progressive thought on the part of the minister. I am sure he probably has a great commitment to this. But more important it requires some progressive thought on the part of the Treasurer and other members of the cabinet. They control the purse strings and have great influence on the spending habits of this government.
I think they squander a lot of money on foolish things, like $40 million or more on advertising campaigns which are largely self-congratulatory. There was $650 million spent on Suncor. I do not want to go into great detail on those things, but there are many places, the jet and so on, where the government has squandered so much money that it has left them with not as big an option as they would like in terms of their spending habits.
In other words, if I could make a recommendation to the Premier or to the Treasurer on how they should spend money, I think their investment in cultural activities would be far more valuable than the $650 million spent on Suncor. It is a matter of priorities. I am not suggesting they spend themselves into oblivion. I am suggesting they readjust their priorities in order that the minister and his ministry can have more funding. They could spread that funding around the province and do a lot of good, not just in terms of culture itself for culture's sake.
I think the minister recognizes -- as a person who is familiar with the business world as well as other activities he has undertaken in his varied career -- the importance of culture as a business. It is not simply a number of people who are reading poetry or participating in plays or things of that nature -- the artsy types as some in society would call them. Rather it is a very real business in many parts of this province. One need only talk to the town council in Niagara-on-the-Lake, for example, to understand the great economic importance, the spinoff effect, of cultural activities in that town.
Therefore, I ask the minister to consider that the money he is putting into the Ontario Arts Council, the money that flows to these small groups in various communities and to the larger, more sophisticated groups, eventually generates more economic activity. It draws tourists and causes those people to spend money in the private sector and therefore helps to bring about the kind of economic activity we are looking for.
What I want to emphasize to the minister -- and I am sure I am speaking to the converted when I speak to the minister on this -- is the great importance of the cultural field as a business to Ontario. Many people who visit from beyond our borders, whether they be from Canada or from the United States and other countries, will comment favourably on the cultural activities that take place in Ontario. They tend to come back to the province for that reason.
Mr. McClellan: Art is business: business is art.
Mr. Bradley: I hear interventions.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Foulds: Culture is business.
Mr. Bradley: Culture is business -- the member for Port Arthur is correct.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Foulds: That is your phrase. That is your view of art.
Mr. Bradley: No, I said that is one aspect. One must recognize that when one is speaking to the government across the floor, unless he brings in free enterprise and business activities the ears close. Therefore we have to talk in those terms.
Mr. Breaugh: Why don't you bring in something about nationalizing the trust companies?
Mr. Bradley: We in this party are not going to nationalize everything that moves. The member should not worry. We are not quite that far to the left, but we do feel there is a role for government to play in the field of culture.
We agree with all those people who are no writing to the minister, calling the minister and meeting the minister, in an attempt to persuade him and his cabinet colleagues on this point. Not only should there not be a 15 per cent cut in funding for the Ontario Arts Council and a general cut for the arts, as they see it, but there should be a significant increase. This would be first, for the purpose of enriching our cultural activities, and second, for generating the kind of revenues sought by the communities in which these activities are located.
One could probably go on in some detail specifying each of the groups that require this funding. However I know that in the concurrences, with the amount of time available to us this evening and because of certain limitations, we do not want to get into that kind of detail. But I invite my colleagues who may have specific problems to bring them to the minister's attention.
I do not know whether the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) is interested in bringing from the committee to the House the activities that have taken place in that committee where this government is concerned. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, as the impartial individual you are while you are in the chair, that the government that sits across from us likes to pride itself on its business management technique and its great record in managing economic matters in this province.
One would have to question this on many occasions. Certainly the cost overruns that we see at the McMichael gallery at the present time are a clear indication that somebody over there is asleep at the switch if they are supposed to be watching that the taxpayers' money is spent in an appropriate and efficient fashion. Certainly we like to see that funding forthcoming; but we also like to see that this funding is disbursed in such a manner that the taxpayer is getting the best possible bang for the buck.
So as promised I am not here tonight, as I have been on other occasions, to implore the government to withdraw Bill 127 and start anew the consultative process.
The Acting Speaker: I am so pleased.
Mr. Bradley: I am not here to do that this evening, because we have done it before and I am sure there will be other opportunities to do so in the future.
in concluding my remarks on the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture I would merely like to express the hope that on Friday, when the government House leader rises to make a momentous announcement on the activities of this Legislature next week, he will agree with the member for St. George (Ms. Fish), the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman), the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) and anyone else on those benches who wants to see Bill 127 withdrawn and the consultative process started once again.
9:10 p.m.
Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly during the concurrence in supply. We have already spent considerable time during the estimates and we are expecting an answer from the minister to the numerous questions we raised on the Arts Council of Ontario, Ontario TV and the multicultural policy of this government.
I would ask him to think for a moment of the implications of his being the Minister of Citizenship and Culture. I do not want to put him on the spot; I know that today he is being lobbied by several people and I am not privy to any information from my family. I got that from Conservative sources.
If Ontario took the route of Alberta vis-à-vis the teaching of heritage languages the minister would find himself in a difficult spot. I refer to those languages being taught in the schools during school hours, as recommended by the task force of the Toronto Board of Education, and in post-school hours on Saturdays, under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture. He would then be forced to take the same position this party is taking against Bill 127.
I know there is a sort of anti-Toronto fixation on the benches of the Conservative Party, be it with the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) or the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson). But as Minister of Citizenship and Culture, if he had to make a choice in developing heritage languages and multicultural classes across Metro Toronto and the province, how would he react if he took the same centrist attitude the government is now taking on Bill 127?
Does the minister not understand that we in the west end of Toronto have incredible problems in adapting to the mainstream of the culture of this province because we come from several parts of the world? We need not only help from the government but we need to solve our problems where we live. That means we need autonomy in making the decisions that are important to us.
If the government takes the approach it is taking on Bill 127, the minister will force us to enter --
The Acting Speaker: Order, please. It has been drawn to my attention by the table that the member for Downsview has already participated once in this debate on the concurrence. Because of the great quantity of business before this House that may simply have slipped by him. I would be prepared --
Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: It is my understanding that according to standing orders 45 and 49 there is no limitation to participation in the concurrences. I would very much appreciate --
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Not once you've relinquished the floor.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: Sit down.
Mr. Di Santo: I know the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory) does not understand the rules. I would appreciate it if the Speaker would give me his advice. I am more than willing to defer to the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds).
The Acting Speaker: I draw the member's attention to the fact that the rules of debate of the House apply in concurrences and the one-time-per-member rule is also in force. However, with the agreement of all sides of the House. we would look at it as an oversight. If another member of the New Democratic Party wishes to continue on this debate, I am sure other members would agree to that.
Mr. Foulds: I want to speak briefly on the concurrences of the Minister of Citizenship and Culture. I would like to put this in the context of the present political atmosphere in the Legislature today. Members have to recognize that it has, indeed, been a very strange day politically.
Here we have a minister who brings forward, without denial, a budget that indicates a 15 per cent cutback in spending to the Ontario Arts Council and there is no protest from the downtown Toronto members of the Progressive Conservative Party. Then, a bill is brought in, if I might argue by analogy, like Bill 127 --
The Acting Speaker: I am sure the member would want to be most selective in that process.
Mr. Foulds: -- which threatens the economy of a school board in downtown Toronto and there is not a public whimper out of the Conservative front or back benches.
However, they have a Minister of Revenue who floats an ideal of bringing in a market value assessment that will be damaging to downtown Toronto. Suddenly, the member for St. George is attacking the minister publicly on the airwaves and in the press, but not in the Legislature, the natural forum in which she has some ability.
I suggest the government, because of the division within its own ranks on these issues, would be very wise not only to push through an increase in funding for the arts groups but to withdraw Bill 127 at the same time. Then they could win in both the constituencies where they need to, if they are going to win when the Premier goes after Joe Clark's job.
It has been a very strange day indeed.
The Acting Speaker: Now back to the matter of the concurrences.
Mr. Foulds: I would like therefore to put the matter of the concurrences of our humble little vote in the Ontario Legislature for matters of Citizenship and Culture into the picture of western society.
It is fair to say in a cliché -- and what is a politician if he does not speak in clichés? We have heard enough of those this evening from the opposite benches -- those societies we remember are the societies that left us something to remember them by. The two that leap most readily to mind are fifth century Athens and Renaissance Italy and Europe generally.
I would suggest to members that one of the reasons those two great western societies live in our memory is because they paid tribute to the arts. They saw the arts not as a frill, not as an extra, but as something essential in a society that expressed the dogged determination and will of man not merely to survive, but to create and the will of man to leave this world a slightly better place than when he came into it.
I would suggest that fifth century Athens and the Renaissance period of Europe, for all their flaws -- and those of us who know a little history know there were major flaws in those societies -- left great works of art, sculpture, music and philosophy for mankind to thrive upon. Those of us today in the 20th century are eternally grateful that they left those things.
As a youngster in northwestern Ontario, I grew up in the city of Thunder Bay where there was not a bookstore, a community college, a university, a symphony or a professional theatre group. During my lifetime I have seen those things come to pass, and nobody considers the university to be a frill, either as a part of our economy or as a part of our society in Thunder Bay. Nobody sees the community college as a frill, and I would like to argue very strongly that no one should see the symphony or the two professional theatre groups as frills.
9:20 p.m.
Moreover, no one should see any of the so-called amateur community groups -- whether in crafts, in the performing arts or in the visual arts -- as frills. It is only when one has that kind of enormous activity at a grass-roots level that one gets an artistic society that is worth speaking about. One of the marks of a mature society is not only that it can throw up the occasional great artist in the usual sense in which we use that word. It also throws up a number of people who give creative and artistic expression to the human spirit through their work in theatre, pottery, visual arts, painting, music and so on.
I would like for a few moments to go from the big context, which I think has been right on the topic, as members will agree, to my own area of northwestern Ontario. Although it is a major tragedy that the cutback in funding the minister is threatening will cause the closure of theatres, the curtailment of activity in museums and in symphonies in southern Ontario, it is an even greater tragedy when that applies to northwestern Ontario. That part of the province lies roughly west of White River and comprises 58 per cent of the land mass of the province. That is not northern Ontario; it is just northwestern Ontario. We have more than half the land mass of the province and we have roughly 3.2 per cent of the population.
Those people who describe themselves as artists and work in the arts have to be pretty tough customers to survive and work in the arts in the northwest. They do it with a good deal of determination and a good deal of what William Faulkner called "the indomitable human spirit." Although the cutbacks the minister is proposing would be a tragedy in southern Ontario, it would be the kiss of death to arts groups. performing and otherwise, in northwestern Ontario.
I will give two examples. As everybody in the northwest knows, and I would suggest everybody in the minister's ministry knows, the Thunder Bay Symphony Orchestra has experienced some difficulty over the last two years or more. I need not go into the details of that. But the symphony has not only resided in Thunder Bay and enriched the life, cultural and otherwise, of the people there but actually has toured that 58 per cent of the land mass of the province. It goes to the small towns of northwestern Ontario, Red Rock --
Mr. Nixon: Where else?
Mr. Foulds: Red Rock, Red Lake, Ear Falls, Kenora, Pickle Crow -- anywhere the member may name it tries to go there.
Mr. Nixon: They do not have any culture in Kapuskasing yet.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Foulds: Yes they do. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk mentions Kapuskasing. In fact, the second group I was going to talk about, the Kaministiquia Theatre Laboratory, is a professional theatre company that has toured not only the northwest but has gone to places like Kapuskasing and has drawn audiences in the northeast.
Mr. Nixon: Hearst.
Mr. Piché: Put that on the record.
Mr. Foulds: It has drawn good audiences and brought to people an experience they would not otherwise have had.
Mr. Nixon: What about the local publisher? Did he show up?
Mr. Gordon: Foulds for Pope.
Mr. Foulds: I suggest to the minister and to the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) and the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) --
Mr. Nixon: Now you've got culture. When you get into Sudbury you are on pretty rich ground.
The Acting Speaker: I would ask the member for Port Arthur to ignore the interjections and continue with his remarks, if at all possible.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I will ignore the interjections but I did want them to get on the record. Second, my throat was a little sore and I was taking a drink of water.
The Acting Speaker: Moving right along.
Mr. Foulds: To curtail the funding of those arts groups, performing and otherwise, like the Magnus Theatre North-West, like the Kam Theatre Lab and like the Thunder Bay Symphony Orchestra, so they can no longer do the work in the schools with the school children in the region, would be to commit an act of grave disservice. It would be a disservice not only to the people I represent in the northwest but to the people of the whole province.
It is easy to say we have a number of cultural institutions that will survive. That is true. The Art Gallery of Ontario will survive as will the Royal Ontario Museum, the Toronto Symphony, the Stratford Shakespearean Festival and the Shaw Festival. But when one threatens the only theatre that is available to people that is very serious.
As I understand it, members have argued in the estimates and in the concurrences about economic values, about the labour-intensive aspect and so on. However, one of the reasons we find ourselves in the tough economic situation we do in Ontario and in Canada is that we are very vulnerable to the international economy. We are particularly vulnerable to the American economy. Some economists would argue we have a colonial economy in that respect. That is one of the troubles with the one-industry resource towns like Marathon, Sudbury and so on. I suggest this country will never grow up unless we cease our colonial dependence on the arts in the United States, France or Britain.
A thing of hope and glory for this society is that since the late 1960s and 1970s there has been a genuine flowering of the arts in Canada. For example, we have achieved writers of genuine international stature. We have people like Margaret Laurence, Margaret Atwood and Robertson Davies. In the performing arts, we have achieved the Toronto Symphony, an orchestra of international stature and we have achieved theatres of international stature. But we will always have a colonial culture unless we continue to fund what I called a few minutes ago the grass-roots cultures for the performing and visual arts.
I urge the minister not only to be the good fellow that he is, the sincere man that he is, but also to be a tough SOB in cabinet, to fight as toughly and as skilfully as he can to persuade his colleague, to bully his colleague, to demand of his colleague that he fund the groups that need the funding so desperately to survive in this province.
9:30 p.m.
Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I am pleased to see in the House tonight not only my friend the minister, the member for Armourdale (Mr. McCaffrey), but also his predecessor, the former Minister of Culture and Recreation and now the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz).
I want to deal with two matters, both of importance to me. One concerns the McMichael Canadian Collection. The other is a riding concern that falls into the ambit of this ministerial responsibility.
First, I want to say that the acting Speaker's predecessor in the chair, the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Robinson), myself and a number of other members have had the opportunity in the past few days to review with some care and at some length the circumstances surrounding the renovations at that outstanding gallery at Kleinburg.
I hope the minister will comment in one area in particular. It is about something that I will draw to his attention a little later. We have some better sense today of what has led to the expenditure of something in the neighbourhood of $10.5 million at the McMichael Canadian Collection.
Mr. Nixon: That is a lot of money.
Mr. Conway: My colleague the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) indicates that is a lot of money. Certainly it is recognized as such by all members who sat on the standing committee on social development this past week.
The tale that can be told about that overexpenditure or, to use the words of many of the involved principals, the cost involved with the inevitable increase in the scope of work, is something this House and, I know, the minister must surely look at.
I invite the minister in his comments to highlight briefly some of the remarks he made in the committee yesterday, because I think he has some clear understanding of the road that must be followed if that kind of situation is not to he duplicated.
However much I may like the member for Ottawa West, with whom I have always had a good working relationship, and I am pleased he is here tonight, I have to tell the former Minister of Culture and Recreation that arising out of the analysis of that overexpenditure at McMichael is the clear, irrefutable impression that the previous minister and his deputy were cheerfully incompetent as they went about their important work in that matter. I cannot come to any other conclusion.
I know the member for Ottawa West has a keen interest, as I believe most members have, in the improvement of the cultural life of this province. But I must tell him the tale of woe that is writ large in the minutes of the board meetings, of the task force meetings and of some cabinet meetings through 1980-81 do not speak well of the ministerial competence of my friend the member for Ottawa West.
In a way that makes one think of the kind of jackpot in which the present Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker), the former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, left his successor, in the trust and loan business. I have a keen sensitivity to the situation our friend the member for Armourdale found himself in the midst of when he took over his ministry some 12 months ago.
I see a not too vigorous shaking of the head of the former Minister of Culture and Recreation. He mouths the words, "You are wrong." The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding is twice as expensive and twice as rich as the cooks said it would be two years ago.
With respect to the McMichael Canadian Collection, as an assembly we were invited some 15 months ago by the then Minister of Culture and Recreation and the present Minister of Tourism and Recreation to put a new legislative framework in place so the management of that outstanding collection could be more tightly controlled, more modern and more open. It was with that mandate that I came in good faith a year ago with my friend the member for Ottawa West to see what could be done to deal with a difficult situation.
How I remember the lecture we got from many in that committee and from some in the ministry, that the old order of sloppy and questionable management had to be left to history and a new legislative framework established. With some controversy, the minister got his way moments before he left the ministry for the green pasture of Tourism and Recreation.
Hon. Mr. Baetz: I have the last word, Sean, so be careful.
Mr. Conway: The minister says he has the last word. As I looked carefully in recent weeks over the data we were able to gather together, a very good record was not left of his stewardship in that matter.
I feel rather keenly for the situation in which the current minister finds himself. As of this day the gallery is not yet open and the overall costs are roughly twice what we were told they would be. I do not want to bore the minister and the House with the circumstances that led us to that current situation.
I was pleased to hear the minister indicate in the committee yesterday that a new structure is being developed within the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture to tighten the control over those projects, to improve the relationship between the minister, his ministry's staff and these boards, agencies and commissions that do business and spend public money under the umbrella of the Ontario government.
If ever there was a tale of a confused mandate and poor to sometimes nonexistent control, it is surely to be found in this whole McMichael reference.
I was not involved in the legislative investigation of the costs incurred at the Royal Ontario Museum. However, listening to some members who know that situation far better than I, I am led to believe that what we saw at the McMichael Canadian Collection is almost a carbon copy of what was experienced at the Royal Ontario Museum, involving substantially fewer dollars but millions of dollars none the less.
All of us on the committee had an opportunity to tour the gallery about a week ago. There is no question that we have a very different building at Kleinburg today than we had two years ago when this whole business was begun in earnest. I am sure some people who had a familiarity with the old structure will find the changes significant in some cases. In some ways, the building is -- I will not say almost unrecognizable -- very substantially altered for a variety of good and important reasons which a number of experts placed before the social development committee.
Mr. Nixon: You can make quite a few changes for $11 million.
Mr. Conway: As my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk suggests, one imagines that more than a few changes are possible for $11 million.
9:40 p.m.
The key reason for my involvement in this was to see exactly what kind of process and procedure was followed in this matter. On previous occasions I have said that if there is one area of my experience as a member that continues to frustrate me it is that I do not feel we as a Legislative Assembly have any real and meaningful capacity to pursue things done in or out of this place in our name. Appropriations are voted, estimates are presented and we go on to other matters: we never really go back and look very carefully at the execution of a given initiative.
I say that partly because of what I was invited to consider a year ago in the social development committee in terms of the new McMichael legislation and partly because not too many months ago I was told, much to my surprise, that the $4.7-million renovation would cost something in the order of $9.5 million; that surprised me because the new order was supposed to be for open and consultative management.
As I have expressed in the committee, I was more than passingly angered by an exchange on the CBC Radio network between Michael Mclvor and Michael Bell, the director of the McMichael Canadian Collection, some months ago. I believe it was back in October 1982. Mr. Bell is part of the new order at the McMichael Gallery and has a reputation as an outstanding director, by all accounts; he is someone for whom I have developed my own respect in recent weeks. But I was angered, to say the least, when I --
Hon. Mr. Baetz: He is good.
Mr. Conway: My friend the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz) suggests he is good and I --
Interjection.
Mr. Conway: Let me just say to the member for Ottawa West --
Hon. Mr. Baetz: My friend, if you had had your way, he would have stayed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.
Interjection.
Mr. Conway: I say to the member for Ottawa West, I do not back down one bit.
Hon. Mr. Baetz: You never do.
Mr. Conway: I think there is clear evidence to paint a trail of incompetence on the part of the former Minister of Culture and Recreation and his deputy minister. I am sorry to have to say it among friends, but that is where the evidence leads us as we carefully examine the matter at hand. As one Waterloo Lutheran University graduate to another, I regret to have to say that, but that is the case as I see it.
I want say to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation that I was not very amused when in October I read the exchange between Mclvor and Bell where Bell was quoted as saying, "One of the reasons we really didn't want to go too public with the additional costs in the renovation project was that we didn't really want to prejudice the project to any kind of public outcry."
What kind of new order is that? I ask my friend the member for Ottawa West. He will well remember what kind of framework and commitment we were offered a year ago by some of these very well-meaning people --
The Acting Speaker: We are on the concurrence for the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture.
Mr. Conway: We are on that reference, Mr. Speaker: I say that so you might clearly understand, as I know you want to. I cannot imagine that an $11-million appropriation under this ministry does not fall to our attention under this reference. If it does not, I will be delighted to hear how it does not. My relationship with this chair in this place grows more nervous with every passing day. I await any instructions --
The Acting Speaker: I can just tell the honourable member that other members are anxious about the relevance of what you are saying to the concurrence.
Mr. Conway: I have listened very carefully to a lot of other members, and I want to believe an $11-million appropriation under this ministry, which has been the source of great public interest, is something you want to see discussed in this concurrence.
I just want to say to my friend the member for Ottawa West, it does not do much good for those of us who were invited to provide a new opportunity to new people at the McMichael Canadian Collection to be told six months after the new order is legislated: "Well, one of the reasons we really didn't tell people there was going to be a $9-million and not a $5-million renovation was that we didn't want to prejudice those good folks down at either the cabinet office or the Legislature, because God knows, if they ever found out what we were doing, there might be a public outcry and we might not get what we seek."
I know my reasonable friend the member for Ottawa West will want to shake his head in disbelief, if not in disgust.
I say to the present minister, it would be useful in these concurrences tonight if he would review again, as he did very quickly yesterday, the five points of his new order vis-à-vis the relationship with agencies, boards and commissions including, regrettably, some of our world-class institutions, such as the Royal Ontario Museum and the McMichael Canadian Collection; and I do not think there is any dispute about the fact that they are world-class. I think this Legislature has an obligation to the taxpayers in Woodstock, Kapuskasing and Hespeler to give a good accounting of moneys spent in their name by this government. For the sake of his colleagues, including the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe), I hope the minister will review the new order he has struck.
I know the minister will want to say a word to the Kleinburg business community. His colleague the member for York North (Mr. Hodgson), who is not here tonight -- I am sure he is out on other important responsibilities -- has been among the most vocal in that committee, together with my colleagues the member for Quinte (Mr. O'Neil) and the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan), in impressing upon both the gallery people and the ministry staff that businesses are failing in Kleinburg. Major business enterprises are going to collapse in hours if some assurance is not given.
I know that reasonable Conservatives and, of course, reasonable Liberals and New Democrats would want to see this minister do everything possible to fend off any additional hardship to the Kleinburg business community. As to the fact that there has been great hardship, I know the minister is in possession of that data.
In the 10 hours of legislative inquiry, we have had an opportunity to look into the operation of this ministry in one interesting and important area of its responsibility. Notwithstanding the protestations of my friend the member for Ottawa West, we have found the old order to have been wanting. We have seen the new minister with a new deputy give positive direction to some of the reforms that are very much needed and, in my view, long overdue. I hope the minister tonight will highlight those particular points.
To be parochial, and I will conclude on this point, Mr. Speaker, I want to speak, as I have on at least five or six earlier occasions, with my friend the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Mr. McCaffrey) about one of the most irritating situations in my constituency. It relates, of course, to TVOntario.
I represent part of the Ottawa Valley in which TVOntario enjoys a very high reputation --
Interjection.
Mr. Conway: -- quite a good reputation.
9:50 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: What happened, did someone not wind the member up in time?
Mr. Conway: I want to say to the minister there is not much joy in the town of Deep River, a magnificent community of 5,200 on the shores of the Ottawa River, where up until a year ago TVOntario was far and away the most popular of all television stations offered to the local population. It came in from the Ottawa transmitter and was distributed by the local cable operator.
Regrettably, about a year or so ago, the federal Department of Communications licensed a television or radio station in west Quebec that had the practical effect of eliminating that signal as it travelled up the Ottawa Valley to the Deep River receiver. TVOntario was lost to that community in my riding, where it was very much appreciated and highly regarded.
It is extremely difficult for those of us in rural eastern Ontario --
Mr. Stokes: The feds did the member in again, eh?
Mr. Conway: As I know the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) or the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) would say if they were speaking to this point in northern Ontario, we do not enjoy many of the benefits that are provided by the taxpayers generally in this province.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Again.
Mr. Conway: Would the minister say "again" if they were speaking to this point?
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Interjections.
Mr. Cassidy: Did Len Hopkins do that to the member?
The Acting Speaker: The member for Renfrew North has the floor.
Mr. Cassidy: If that party cannot co-ordinate things in this province --
The Acting Speaker: I have asked the honourable member to give respect to the member who has the floor.
Mr. Conway: The Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) suggests I am not wound up. I would have thought after his last 36 hours he would be anxious that a lot of us and a lot of things would be wound down. I just invite the minister to take a more cautious approach in this place for the remaining days of this session.
it is a source of great irritation to the taxpayers of that community, who have very much enjoyed that service, to find there does not appear to be any immediate solution to their difficulty. On their behalf, I would appreciate any advice the minister would care to offer about the preferred solution, which is the establishment and construction of a transmitter somewhere in the Ottawa Valley.
There are thousands of other people living in rural communities and rural townships who have no access to TVOntario, as they have no access to almost all but one of the networks that are taken for granted in urban southern Ontario. I simply ask on behalf of my constituents in Deep River, who have asked me on a number of occasions to underscore their anxiety and anger about the loss of a service they had enjoyed for many years, what the minister is prepared to do to restore that very excellent service to them.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence on these two items.
The Acting Speaker: There is approximately half an hour left.
Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to take this opportunity to rise and convey my concern about an important issue that has been raised by a lot of members in the Legislature, in particular by my colleagues in the New Democratic Party and by my leader. It is the issue of the 15 per cent cutbacks in the arts. It appears the minister really did not get the message and is continuing the government's policy of cutting back programs that are affecting people's lives across the province.
In the past six months we have been faced with Bill 179, the restraint program which affected 500,000 public servants across the province. We saw the government cutting back programs in different sectors of our society and now there are cutbacks in the arts. In some ways it is immoral to do that, because too many single artists across the province will be affected by the 15 per cent cut.
I was moved by several letters and different phone calls to my office from a lot of people involved in that field. It appears the 15 per cent cut in the arts will constitute the loss of their jobs and they will not be able to contribute to the art world in Ontario.
In the past, it appeared the government was giving some regard to the world of art. The position which has been taken lately by this government is unfair to many people, because art is an expression of our culture in the province. The 15 per cent cut means the minister is going to mutilate the expansion of culture through art. I hope the minister is going to get the message to remedy the situation based on the fact that maybe he has the figures of what the 15 per cent cutbacks will mean to the world of art, how many people will be affected, how many artists will no longer be interested in that side of our culture and eventually will move into different fields to make their living.
As I stated, I received letters and phone calls from people. I feel moved to read some of these letters in order that the minister will change his mind, particularly about those single artists who are expressing their cultural views through art, so that they will be able to continue to exercise that aspect of their lives in art. I hope he will give some consideration to those people so they will continue their commitment to the world of art and that they will be helped to build up the cultural mosaic background which exists across Ontario.
I received a lot of letters from constituents, some of which I would like to read into the record, because I think their views should be heard. I would like to convey their concerns about that issue to the minister. The first letter, dated February 1, 1983, says:
"As a citizen with a lifelong interest in the arts, I have read with alarm that there is a possibility of cutbacks in support for the arts from the government of Ontario. I strongly urge that you press the government to increase funding, at the very least to cover the inflationary increases of the past several years.
"This province has had a reasonably enlightened attitude towards support for the cultural life of Ontario. To begin to cut away at the base of support is to jeopardize the quality of life for all of us.
10 p.m.
"In a time of increased unemployment, arts cutbacks are doubly counter productive. The arts are labour intensive and it costs very little to keep the arts alive and well. Artists are already underemployed and not well paid. Furthermore, people like myself, who have come to appreciate theatre, music, dance, galleries, etc., will not be able to sustain the arts individually.
"Ontario has, it seems, taken a leadership role in the arts in Canada. The thought of losing that now is a shameful prospect. Let us build on our strengths. Let us not sacrifice the arts."
This is really an artistic letter. It portrays the sensitivity of this issue, which affects a lot of people across Ontario. In particular, I am talking about the single artists who are receiving grants from the Ontario Arts Council, and with cutbacks of 15 per cent it is certain that a lot of people will not be able to portray their programs through art across Ontario.
The other letters, of course, fall into the same pattern of concern. I hope the minister is going to review the government policy concerning the 15 per cent cutbacks. I also hope he is going to study the impact of the 15 per cent cutbacks on single artists across Ontario to make sure that youngsters and people who have dedicated their lives to the world of art will not be completely separated from that concern and, as a result, eventually change their profession.
With that, I will conclude my remarks in the hope that the minister is going to give serious consideration to this issue. I remember my leader raised the issue when the news broke in the newspapers, and he was trying to get a commitment from the minister to try in some way to resolve the issue.
in the past we have seen the government cut back different programs for several months and then, when it was close to an election, of course, it gave away money and increased programs. At the same time, people were suffering the consequences of those policies. I hope the world of art will not have to endure the same government policy of making people suffer and then, close to election time, see the minister eventually increase his budget and give away money to people so that again they can form their programs.
With that, I am going to conclude my remarks. I was informed by my colleague the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) that he is occupied tonight at a very important meeting in his riding. He had hoped to be back in time to speak on these concurrences. However, in the event that his meeting did not finish in time for him to participate in this debate, he has asked me to share with all members a letter he received. This letter, he feels, expresses in a very straightforward way many of his concerns. It reads as follows:
"Dear Mr. Minister:
"The announcement of the proposed 15 per cent cut by the Ontario government to various arts organizations throughout the province is an extremely alarming proposal with such far-reaching effects that I find myself deeply anxious as I contemplate the results of such action.
"All arts organizations are staggering under the present recession as private funding has been sharply curtailed. The public, though sympathetic to the needs and purposes of such organizations, tends to become extremely introverted in times of economic strain. Coupled with our continuing inflation, the combination of circumstances has made it very difficult for many artists and organizations to continue their work.
"Indeed, many have already been forced to quit, which constitutes a grave loss to the community. In particular, the work of the Ontario Arts Council has had a significant impact on the community at the grass-roots level. By sponsoring small numbers of highly professional artists to visit the schools, they have introduced a method of assimilating an interest and appreciation of good and lasting art in the form of music, theatre and visual arts forms of all types.
"Many of the students, though influenced, have no other exposure to our cultural heritage, since their parents have neither the time nor the money to take them to the large art institutions, or are unaware of the benefits of providing such education until their children expose them to it.
"Such work can only be done by trained professional artists who have the necessary technical skills. Serious cutbacks in such programs would have lasting deleterious effects on the cultural background of our citizens. Once artists and arts organizations are lost, even in a time of economic restraint, they are irrevocably lost to the people. The reinstitution of our creative community will take many years' influence on the public of our province.
I urge you to examine the results of such drastic cuts before the damage is done. Large organizations such as the Ontario Arts Council support small organizations such as the Ontario Puppetry Association and allow them to continue their existence and to provide excellence to the children of Ontario."
Again, I would like to emphasize the value of arts in Ontario. I want the minister to review the impact of such cutbacks and to make sure that such organizations and people who have been expressing concern because of the work which has been done in different communities across Ontario, will not be damaged as a result of the 15 per cent cutbacks.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for the opportunity given to me tonight. I hope the minister will take into account the remarks which I have made.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to make the pleas which were made by many of the members who spoke before me, but rather than be repetitious I would simply like to surrender the balance of the time I have to the minister so that he may reply.
I will talk to him on a personal basis to raise certain issues in the hope that he will pay attention to the biggest city in Canada south of the United States border which is holding an international freedom festival with the biggest city in the United States north of the Canadian border. I will talk to him on a personal basis so that we can resolve some of the problems in my riding.
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief, but I just want to remind --
The Acting Speaker: Has the member for Ottawa Centre already spoken?
Mr. Cassidy: I simply wanted to remind the minister --
The Acting Speaker: Has the honourable member already spoken? The honourable member does not have the floor then.
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would simply remind the minister of the comments I was forced to compress into a tiny amount of time and ask that he respond to those comments.
The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order.
10:10 p.m.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I only want to take a few minutes to make my remarks to the Minister of Citizenship and Culture. There are two or three topics I would like to address.
I brought the first one to the attention of the minister during his estimates, but I intend to keep repeating it because I feel it is important. I am being parochial when I say this because I am speaking of something located in my constituency.
The Ontario Heritage Foundation has a building there known as the Macdonnell House. I have spoken about this structure before and, with the space of time that has elapsed since our last conversation on the topic, I trust he is able to inform the House as to what the progress is and what he intends to do with that structure.
For the benefit of all members, I would like to state that Macdonnell House is a building located immediately west of the border between Quebec and Ontario. It is a magnificent stone building built not much later than when the Constitutional Act of 1791 came into being.
This is a point the minister will no doubt remember from reading his history books. A line was drawn at the western end of the seigniory of Vaudreuil. It was deemed anything west of there would be part of the new province of Upper Canada.
The structure known as Macdonnell House was built on the corner of that property. It was built by a trader by the name of Macdonnell who had customs offices and so forth and was using that building. It was the first structure as one entered Upper Canada. It has a historic significance in the history of Ontario.
We are approaching the bicentennial of this province. By the way, I do not recognize that the bicentennial is 1984; I think the true bicentennial is 1991, commemorating the Constitutional Act of 1791. From now until 1991, the true bicentennial, gives eight years for the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture to renovate and repair the Macdonnell House and make it into a truly cultural and historic site in this province.
The building has another peculiar and unusual feature. It is one of the few places in this province where the postal address is Quebec. I have about 10 or 15 constituents in my riding who are in that somewhat unusual position. When I referred to that during the estimates of the ministry, a lot of people were scratching their heads. They thought this could not be, that there could not be a place in Ontario where the address is in Quebec.
That is not the case. The minister will no doubt recall looking at the brochure for Macdonnell House. I am sure he has one because they were issued by his ministry. It says right on the brochure, "Macdonnell House, Pointe-Fortune, Quebec," and Macdonnell House is located in Ontario, as we all know. That is because the post office is on the Quebec side. One actually has to cross over into Quebec before getting access to the building.
It is unusual. It has distinct features as to the historical character of the building, which I outlined previously to the minister. I am sure he recalls all those things I told him about Macdonnell House, and about the need of restoration because the building is at present sagging in the middle.
My constituency office assistant and I visited the structure last summer at a time when the ministry had a group of people working there. They were doing digs around the building trying to find historic objects dating back to the period in which Macdonnell House was built. At that time, I had the good fortune, on the invitation of an official from the ministry, to visit the building. It was an informative session. One can find historic objects dating back to the period in which Macdonnell House was built. At that time, I had the good fortune, on the invitation of an official from the ministry, to visit the building. It was an informative session.
I stress that again and bring it to the attention of the minister. I invite him to come to my constituency next summer so he and I, and perhaps the reeve of the township of East Hawkesbury and other officials, can visit that interesting and unique structure, Macdonnell House.
There are two other points I would like to bring to the minister's attention. The task force on multicultural programs of the Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto has released a report. I believe it was released in the past week or two. I do not know whether any funding or assistance came from his ministry, but perhaps he could identify that in his remarks. The concern I have with the report is that it identities minorities in Toronto and how well they are served by the children's aid society. Minorities are identified as the non-English-speaking population.
The minister will recognize that some of the minorities listed here are the Chinese and other Asians, the Greek, the Indian-Pakistani, the East Asian, the native Canadian and the West Indian. There is no place in there in which they identify the francophones of Toronto. I do think that is an omission.
L'Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario was making a presentation tonight to the Metro children's aid society about this particular issue, about its concerns and what it saw -- and I tend to agree with the group -- as a serious deficiency in that report if that aspect of it was not looked at.
I do not want to speak on that much longer because I do not even know whether there was funding from the ministry. Perhaps the minister can elaborate on that.
In closing, I want to speak very briefly on Wintario grants. Last year, my constituency was very fortunate. We received a good amount of Wintario grants. I do hope that this year we are again in that position. One concern I have is that the announcement seems to have been delayed this year much longer than it has been in the past. I know some cabinet ministers have said the Wintario grants will be announced in the next few days. It is very important for my area that they be announced in the near future, and I know everybody else will claim the same.
As the minister will recognize, and several other eastern Ontario members of this House will recognize, my constituency is suffering from very chronic high unemployment, especially in the east end of the riding. The announcement of certain Wintario projects could really assist in winter employment to get people off welfare and back into meaningful work. We really need that in the constituency of Prescott-Russell and especially in the town of Hawkesbury.
With that, I would like to thank the minister for the co-operation we have had in the past and hope that we can continue with that same co-operation in the future.
Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I would like to leave a little time for the minister to reply, but I would like also to get on record my very strong objection to the proposal to cut back the Ontario Arts Council grants. That is the biggest question that has to be dealt with under these estimates.
The head of the Ontario Arts Council, Mr. Pitman, said in the estimates that there might be a cut of as much as $2 million and he spelled out the consequences very succinctly. On January 18, he said:
"It translates very quickly into unemployment; that is, people who would not be able to continue in the world of the arts and would probably have to go on welfare. Many of them would not even be eligible for unemployment insurance.
"The reason for that is very simple. By our estimation, three quarters of all the moneys which are expended by the Ontario Arts Council go directly to wages and salaries. The arts, as you realize, are very much labour-oriented. Most of that money goes into the salaries of people who are on stage and the technicians who are behind the lights in the performing arts. Very often it goes directly into the incomes of the individual artists.
"As you probably realize, according to Revenue Canada, artists are at the very bottom. Except for pensioners, they have the lowest income of any group in society. The translation is very quick."
I would like the minister to reconsider any possible cuts to the Ontario Arts Council because they would be counterproductive. They would be counterproductive in terms of the workers in the artistic community; they would be counterproductive in the development of a Canadian cultural industry; they would be counterproductive in terms of opportunities for Canadians to see Canadian productions which will help us to develop our identity, and they would be counterproductive in the morale of this province in a time of economic difficulties. If we cut out our cultural activities, many people will feel defeatist, and I think that is not the kind of atmosphere we want to create.
10:20 p.m.
The cultural industry is an important industry, which must be maintained and assisted rather than cut back. They are not even getting the nine and five increase other people are getting. They are getting a decrease of some amount, which we have not yet found out but if it is as much as $2 million, it is much too much.
There is just one other item I wanted to ask the minister some questions on.
The Deputy Speaker: There are 10 minutes remaining in this concurrence.
Ms. Bryden: Okay. It is in regard to the future of the Guild Inn properties. As the minister undoubtedly knows, the Guild Inn and the property around it were sold by Spencer Clark, the owner, to the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the provincial government for $8 million. This was five years ago, and the property was leased back to Mr. Clark for the next five years.
Now those five years are about to run out, and we do not know what the government's plans are for those properties. An investment of $8 million is not a small investment, and I think we should have more definite information from the government on the plans for this area.
It comes under this ministry because there is a heritage project on the property. A number of outstanding architectural artefacts that were collected by Mr. Clark are on the property. There is also an operating hotel, an art colony and a park. I think we must see that, whatever arrangements are made for operating this property in the future, all of these aspects of the property are taken into account and a proper development is planned.
I understand the present arrangements are that the Metro Toronto parks department operates the parks part and it produced a master plan in 1981 that will in effect change the property's character and use up a great deal. It may threaten the protection of the artifacts; it may threaten the artists' colony; it may cause too much activity on the shoreline, which is very unstable. I think all these things must be taken into account, and I would like the minister to indicate what the plans are.
Is he planning to set up a management board on which there will be citizen input? Is he planning to talk about the plans with the local residents and with an organization known as the Friends of the Guild? Is he planning to see there is access by the public to the parks but that there is also preservation of the artefacts? Is he planning to see that the hotel operates as a profitable concern for the province, or is he planning to lease it to some private operator? If so, what sort of terms is he thinking of putting into any tenders?
I think we have to know all these things, and I think the Legislature has to be consulted on them as well as the local residents. So I would like some answers on the future plans for the Guild Inn property.
Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: Mr. Speaker, I think I have approximately five or six minutes. I did have a number of items, all of them related to the arts council cutbacks, that I wanted to get on the record. In response to the member for Renfrew North, I have a couple of matters that flow out of the meetings on the McMichael gallery expenditures.
Of the dozen or so members who spoke, I think all but one or two touched on one constant theme, the 15 per cent cutback to the Ontario Arts Council. The point has been well made by a variety of people that I appear to be on the horns of a clear contradiction when I have been quoted on a number of occasions as having talked about the economic impact, the business side of the arts -- which has been alluded to a lot here in the discussion -- and at the same time appeared to be cutting back on that.
I want to get on the record a couple of numbers I find useful, and some members might be able to incorporate them in some of their discussions with constituents or elsewhere.
To begin with, the arts industry provides about 50,000 full-time jobs in Ontario. In the broad sense of the word, cultural industries employ more people in our province than the steel industry or the pulp and paper industry. Twenty-nine per cent of the $8.7 billion spent by tourists in Ontario is directly attributable to people visiting cultural or historical attractions.
This cultural industry provides about $3 billion to our provincial economy and pays approximately $200 million in sales and other taxes to the provincial government. I have some specific examples, including the Tut exhibit at the Art Gallery of Ontario a few years ago and the Ontario Science Centre's outstanding China exhibit more recently, but I will skip over that.
I am disappointed that the conversation about arts and culture has centred exclusively on the Ontario Arts Council, as important and fundamental an agency as it is, because I think it is relevant that we take a look at some other agencies and the tax moneys that have been made available for their spending over the last number of years.
I would like to get some numbers on the record. I am starting in 1975, because that is when the original Ministry of Culture and Recreation was established and that is when the original Wintario moneys began to flow to communities in the province. From 1975 to the present, the Ontario Arts Council has received from the government $91,155,700.
I think it is important that we see this in the whole context. During that same period the Art Gallery of Ontario has received $33,871,500; CJRT-FM, $5,094,600; TVOntario, $100,160,500; the Royal Ontario Museum, $65,898,700; the McMichael Canadian Collection, $5,439,000; the Ontario Heritage Foundation, $9,554,600 -- these are operating dollars; the Ontario Science Centre, $54,578,400; and the Royal Botanical Gardens, $5,996,800, for a total of $371,749,800.
As everyone knows, the Ontario Arts Council was established in 1963, not 1975. From 1963 to the present, the Ontario Arts Council has received $127,550,700 in the form of grants from the government. In the last seven years, if we take all the money spent on things cultural, including Wintario money, money spent on libraries -- so I am taking a little broader mandate -- on museums, on the agencies I have just quoted, and in direct transfer payments to the arts from the ministry, we have a total of $716,947,082. I simply wanted to get that on the record.
The investment the taxpayers of this province have made in things cultural is massive. I believe the dollar return is very measurable, that is, it is good business. But I think it is important that we do not approach this issue -- and the member for Port Arthur was good enough to allude to this -- sounding like a bunch of cost accountants, because there is an issue referred to generally as the quality of life. We as people in a civilized society recognize there is a need to support things cultural in the community at large. I think that quality-of-life investment and the recognition by this government of that fact of life in the province, is in place, and I think the dollars do go some distance to help explain that.
The Ontario Arts Council will not be cut back 15 per cent. We sent a letter to each of the 11 agencies of our ministry about three or four months ago, asking them, in a worst-case scenario, what they would have to do to cope with a possible 15 per cent cut.
Mr. Cassidy: I am glad the minister is fessing up to that.
Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: Well, fessing up to it -- with the greatest respect, the minute I was asked the question from the member's leader in the House, I made it very clear at that time that each of the agencies got an identical letter.
Mr. Cassidy: The minister announced it after he was made to.
Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: I announced it at the time I had an opportunity to respond to the question raised by the member's leader.
Mr. Cassidy: The minister announced it because we raised it, not because he intended to.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: Nonsense. Each of the 11 agencies was given the identical challenge, to find out how they would be able to cope, if at all, if faced with that cut.
Mr. Speaker: The time has expired.
Resolution concurred in.
The House adjourned at 10:31 p.m.