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

June 28, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-Jun-28 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 28 June 2001 Jeudi 28 juin 2001

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

AND TRADES

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES

AMENDMENT ACT

(WATER SOURCE PROTECTION), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RESSOURCES EN EAU

DE L'ONTARIO

(PROTECTION DES SOURCES

D'ALIMENTATION EN EAU)

ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

AND TRADES

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES

AMENDMENT ACT

(WATER SOURCE PROTECTION), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RESSOURCES EN EAU

DE L'ONTARIO

(PROTECTION DES SOURCES

D'ALIMENTATION EN EAU)

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GOLF TOURNAMENTS

SCARBOROUGH SUPPORT SERVICES

FOR THE ELDERLY

SENIORS

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

CAMPBELLFORD WATERFRONT FESTIVAL

INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION

VOLUNTEERS

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

HEALTH PROTECTION

VISITORS

SPEAKER'S RULING

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

DEMOCRATIC HERITAGE ARCHAEOLOGICAL

PRESERVATION ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA

PRÉSERVATION ARCHÉOLOGIQUE

DU PATRIMOINE DÉMOCRATIQUE

SOUTH ASIAN HERITAGE ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'HÉRITAGE

SUD-ASIATIQUE

SAVE OUR ARCHITECTURAL

HERITAGE ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

VISANT À SAUVEGARDER

NOTRE PATRIMOINE ARCHITECTURAL

VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER

FOR BEACHES-EAST YORK

FRANK KLEES

ORAL QUESTIONS

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

USER FEES

IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE POLICY

EDUCATION FUNDING

WOMEN'S SHELTERS

POVERTY

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

CLEANUP OF PUBLIC LANDS

LONG-TERM CARE

ONTARIO-NEW YORK

ECONOMIC SUMMIT

AIR QUALITY

PETITIONS

HYDRO ONE EQUIPMENT

TRANSIT SERVICES

LORD'S PRAYER

WATER EXTRACTION

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

ELECTRICITY GENERATING STATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STABILITY AND EXCELLENCE

IN EDUCATION ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA STABILITÉ

ET L'EXCELLENCE EN ÉDUCATION

STABILITY AND EXCELLENCE

IN EDUCATION ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA STABILITÉ

ET L'EXCELLENCE EN ÉDUCATION

MPP COMPENSATION REFORM ACT

(ARM'S LENGTH PROCESS), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 PORTANT RÉFORME

DE LA RÉTRIBUTION DES DÉPUTÉS

(PROCESSUS SANS LIEN

DE DÉPENDANCE)

GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'EFFICIENCE

DU GOUVERNEMENT

CITY OF ELLIOT LAKE ACT, 2001

PREMIUM AUTO

COLLISION INC. ACT, 2001

1072550 ONTARIO

LIMITED ACT, 2001

TOWN OF NEWMARKET ACT, 2001

NIAGARA CENTRAL AIRPORT COMMISSION ACT, 2001

MASTER'S COLLEGE AND

SEMINARY ACT, 2001

THE BOYS' HOME ACT, 2001

1150982 ONTARIO INC. ACT, 2001

1252563 ONTARIO LIMITED ACT, 2001

RDP COMPUTER

CONSULTING INC. ACT, 2001

CONRAD GREBEL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE ACT, 2001

569924 ONTARIO LIMITED ACT, 2001

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

(HERITAGE PROPERTIES), 2001

BROWNFIELDS STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES FRICHES CONTAMINÉES

WILFRID LAURIER UNIVERSITY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

MODIFIANT LA LOI INTITULÉE

THE WILFRID LAURIER UNIVERSITY ACT

HOMES FOR RETARDED PERSONS

REPEAL ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 ABROGEANT

LA

LOI SUR LES FOYERS

POUR DÉFICIENTS MENTAUX

SELECT COMMITTEE ON

ALTERNATIVE FUEL SOURCES

POLICE SERVICES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES SERVICES POLICIERS

HORSE RIDING SAFETY ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ

DES CAVALIERS

PORTABLE HEART

DEFIBRILLATOR ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LES DÉFIBRILLATEURS

CARDIAQUES PORTATIFS

REFERRAL OF BILL 34

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE

QUI CONCERNE LA DIVULGATION DE

RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES ADOPTIONS

BRAIN TUMOUR

AWARENESS MONTH ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LE MOIS

DE LA SENSIBILISATION

AUX TUMEURS CÉRÉBRALES

Thursday 28 June 2001 Jeudi 28 juin 2001

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

AND TRADES

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre):

Be it resolved that in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should appoint or

designate a person or body as a special adviser to examine existing opportunities and identify methods for improving access to trades and professions in Ontario including but not limited to the

professions of medicine, nursing and engineering, for Ontarians who are foreign-trained and foreign-qualified.

As part of the review, the special adviser should conduct a comprehensive review of the programs and policies of all ministries of the government, bodies that

report to those ministries and professional regulatory bodies.

The special adviser be required to make written recommendations to the government, within the time period that the government establishes, on what measures the

government needs to take to enhance opportunities described in paragraph 1 that the special adviser identifies.

As soon as possible after receiving the special adviser's recommendations, the government table a copy of the special adviser's recommendations in the

Legislature.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Ms Mushinski has moved private member's notice of motion number 9. The member has up to 10 minutes for

her presentation.

Ms Mushinski: I want to start off by thanking whomever it was who was so thoughtful to leave a glass of water for my presentation this morning.

I believe it was one of the pages. This being the last day of the Legislature, I wanted to extend my sincere thanks for their levels of service to this Legislature in the past few weeks.

I want to start off by extending my particular thanks to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities for her help, guidance and support in my

presentation this morning. There's no question that access to trades and professions is a very serious problem for many recent immigrants and residents of Ontario who are foreign-trained and

foreign-qualified. I happen to have one of the most diverse communities, I believe, in all of Ontario, and I believe it is the single greatest concern among our diverse communities today, that

issue of access to trades and professions.

I'd like to share a couple of specific examples of issues that are facing members of my constituency of Scarborough Centre. Recently, I received a constituency

visit from a gentleman who immigrated to Canada in 1995 as a skilled person -- he and his wife, actually -- with landed-immigrant visas that were granted on a system-points basis. They are

currently Canadian citizens. Since my constituent's arrival, he has worked for the Toronto board of education as full-time support staff. His wife is a computer programmer. This gentleman has a

master of science degree in agricultural sciences and the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in education. He also has other qualifications in database programming and economics, and he's a

certified tour guide. He has taught science at the high school level in Romania and since coming to Canada has volunteered as a teacher assistant for the Toronto board of education. He has worked

in several schools in my riding, with an amount of 15 hours on average per week volunteering.

At the beginning of 1998, he submitted, in person, an application for registration to the Ontario College of Teachers, and he was required to pay a fee of

approximately $220. After a few months he received from the membership services the first letter, which was dated in 1998, and this letter asked him to complete the following documents: a degree

transcript, a teacher education transcript, a letter of good standing and an official letter from the institutions confirming the granting of degrees. That's when the problem started. He was

surprised to learn that his original documents were not acceptable and that their translation had to be signed by the Romanian embassy in London, UK, and the Romanian consulate in Toronto. I have a

four-page dissertation of the red tape that my constituent had to go through, including a visit back to Romania to get the original documents, because they would not accept notarized copies.

That is just one example of the litany of complaints I have received from my constituents over six years in gaining access to trades and professions in this

province.

Recently I received another visit, in this case from a university professor whose wife is taking a four-year internship in the United States because for her to

get an equivalent in Canada, it would take five years. Those are the kinds of issues that I believe are pervasive, not just in Ontario, but throughout Canada.

I had a call from the close friend of one of my newspaper deliverers whose cousin was encouraged, because of his particular expertise, to emigrate from Sri

Lanka. This particular gentleman is a software engineer. His wife was a practising family doctor in Sri Lanka. They were encouraged to come to contribute to the economic environment of this great

province of ours, only to find the litany of red tape and barriers to access that I have already described.

I think it's important to tell you what I believe my resolution will do. My resolution asks for a comprehensive review of current practices of all ministries and

professional regulatory bodies that address access to trades and professions. I believe this issue is something that all parties agree is of great concern.

On May 1, the member for Kingston and the Islands asked, "Why don't we take advantage of these individuals and fast-track them into a system whereby if they have

the qualifications to be a physician in our province and they meet our standards, we approve these people?"

On May 9 the member for Timmins-James Bay submitted a petition regarding access to trades and professions where it said that "the government of Ontario should

implement a plan to improve access to professions and trades for foreign-trained professionals."

The aim of my resolution is to create a cohesive and seamless system for the foreign-trained and qualified applicant where ministries and regulatory bodies would

have greater interaction and co-operation among themselves to decrease the waiting time and recertification period.

I believe this government has indeed been responding quite significantly to the issue of accessing the skills of foreign-trained individuals, but I also believe

more work needs to be done. I believe my resolution will actually harmonize a lot of the barrier removals we're presently working on to make sure that foreign-trained individuals, most of whom

settle right here in Ontario -- 50% of all immigrants actually settle in Ontario, and 80% of those who settle in Ontario settle within the GTA. I believe we have more of the most experienced

foreign-trained individuals, professionals, driving taxis in this city than anywhere in the world.

I believe that as a government we must do everything we can to remove the barriers, to harmonize the various credentials assessment procedures and also to work

with other provincial agencies, as well as the federal government, to work together to remove those barriers so that everyone who comes to this province has a fair chance and an equal opportunity

to access trades and professions. Not only will it help my colleagues in cabinet who are desperate to make sure that we have as many trained individuals as possible staying here and working here,

but I believe it truly will help the economic fabric of the environment in this province.

I hope that I will get all-party support for my resolution this morning.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I'm delighted to join this debate on behalf of Dalton McGuinty and my Liberal colleagues. The member from

Scarborough's resolution today seems quite sincere, especially when she has a track record of introducing other pieces of information about access to trades and professions.

In short, what is access to trades and professions? It is a process by which a foreign-trained professional, a tradesperson, can enter the professions and trades

in this country, especially in Ontario, as quickly as possible. That's the intent of what all parties are trying to accomplish.

To be honest, we have not been able to do it, even though we see there has been some goodwill among all three parties. For some strange reason, the ship of

government is slowly turning around in terms of accepting the idea that those who are trained in other countries, in other jurisdictions -- even within Canada -- are able to practise in Ontario. As

I just said, even within Canada, some professions and some trades will not permit a person who has a licence in Alberta -- there are some professions in Ontario that will not permit a person to

practise right here. That is a shame and it should have been addressed a long time ago.

However, there are a number of issues that cause us real concern with this resolution, even though I must say on behalf of our leader, Dalton McGuinty, and the

Liberal Party, that we are in support of this legislation. We know these are just baby steps in the direction of opening up and streamlining this process of access to trades and professions in

Ontario.

First let's look at the original access report that was tabled in 1989. It sailed right by the NDP government of 1990 to 1995. Then of course we look at the

Common Sense Revolution in 1995. Right in that blue book, with the Premier's picture on the front of it, we find that there is a commitment. The commitment is, "Yes, we will take the steps

necessary to open up the doors and to streamline the process so that foreign-trained professionals can access professions and trades as quickly as possible in Ontario," which makes really good

sense. That's the Common Sense Revolution promise of 1995.

Today it's 2001 and we're still talking about this member's resolution, which seems sincere. She says, "We should establish a process, we should establish a

person or a group of persons who will then look into this matter of providing access to trades and professions and make recommendations." Six years after the promise, this is a baby step in the

right direction and that's why we will be supporting it.

But as I just said, what we want to find out from the member for Scarborough Centre is -- while she was Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, she had

carriage of this legislation. In other words, the people of Ontario should know she was in power: a simple signature on a simple recommendation. This one that she produced today not only would have

started the process but set us ahead of this game for six years. Six years later, we're now talking about thinking of establishing a person or a group of people to make recommendations. Wow.

What I'd like to know, and I'm sure you'd like to know the same thing, in fact what the people of Ontario would like to know is, what happened when she was

Minister of Citizenship and Culture at that time with a simple stroke of the pen? What happened? The promise was in the blue book, yet was she unable to influence her own colleagues at the

executive table? Was she unable to influence even the backbenchers to say, "Look, this is important"?

My second point: now, six years later -- in fact from the access report of 1989, 11 years later -- the chickens have come home to roost. What are those chickens?

It is now clear to all of Ontario that there is a doctor shortage, that there is a veterinarian shortage, that we need literally hundreds of nurses. In fact, what we did, not too long ago, was fire

nurses, cut their salaries, send them out so they could find jobs in other places, whether it was the United States, Europe or Australia. We said, "We don't need you."

Only two years later we're saying, "Oh, wait a minute. We've made a mistake. In fact, we've made a grand mistake on a grand scale." Now we're saying to those

very same nurses we paid off -- when we cut their contracts, we paid them off to leave and that cost an extra bundle of money -- "Please come back to Ontario, because we are in desperate need of

your services." It is easy to see that there are hundreds of nurses we're now trying to pay more to come back. What a mistake.

We need pharmacists -- we don't have enough pharmacists -- hundreds of pharmacists, in fact. Now, we didn't know that before? Of course we've known this, but it

always takes a long time to steer this cumbersome machine and ship of government around into the wind, or in fact to ensure that on the doctors, because we know there's a doctor shortage, there's

something happening.

I know that you'd like to know, Mr Speaker, and the member for Scarborough Centre already knows that, but most of us probably don't: we think we know the reason

the government has finally seen the light and said, "Yes, we have to do something about shortages in terms of doctors, in terms of physicians, in terms of supplying physician services to our

communities." We know that today there is a shortage of 1,000 doctors. We have over 700 communities in Ontario alone that are crying out for physicians, and we can fill that need. So we think

somehow the government has seen the light. But let me also say thank you very much to those who have worked in the bunker, who have actually done something to produce the change and prodded this

government along so they could see the light.

Who were they? Well, the first organization was Skills for Change. There are others. For instance, there is the Welland Heritage Council and Multicultural

Centre. There are the Council of Agencies Serving South Asians, Windsor Women Working with Immigrant Women, and South Asian Family Support Services.

They all got together and said, "There's something basically wrong when we have so many of our doctors and so many of our trained professionals driving taxis and

delivering pizzas and cleaning our restaurants and cleaning our buildings, and yet they are superqualified in terms of helping us out with our shortages." What a way to go. What a way to go, when

you think about it. We're asking them to drive taxis while we need them desperately because we can't fill the shortage, we can't fill the spots.

In the information technology sector alone, do you know how many jobs are open right now, while we speak? There are literally, in Ontario alone, 30,000 openings

for technologists in the information sector -- 30,000. We're not talking about trades and we're not talking about the professions; we're talking about open jobs we can't fill. What are these people

doing in the meantime? They're doing some menial task, and yet they are highly, highly qualified.

So you can see that what this government is doing is simply following the direction of these groups which have made these recommendations already.

That brings me to my next point, and that is, people always say to me, "If you are going to open up the process and accept all these foreign-trained people, then

you are lowering the standards." I know the member for Scarborough Centre will agree, and also my colleagues from the third party -- I know we will all agree -- that is not the case. We want to put

everyone on notice in Ontario that that is not what we are trying to do today with this resolution. We're not trying to lower the standards. No, we're simply saying, "Give people a chance. Open the

process so they know what is expected of them," because many of them are coming from other countries and are being told by our own immigration officials, "You know what? When you come to Ontario,

you're qualified. We've got a job for you." Wow. Then they arrive. They are being told that. I know, because I've been to three foreign countries and I've been in touch with our own immigration

workers. They've been telling those people who are highly qualified, "Come to Ontario and you'll have a job."

When they finally come to Ontario, what awaits them here? Well, somehow the

interpretation is that many of the professions and trades that are organized here are

protecting their own turf and are not having a shop with open doors. I'm not saying that all of our professions and trades are protecting their turf; oh, no. In fact, I just recently met with two

of them that are very good at producing their own recommendations and making changes to help out because they know we need people to practise in Ontario. For instance, the certified general

accountants have made a great recommendation to change their constitution. The engineers of Ontario have done the same thing. These are just two.

But when we say here, and when you say as a government, "We're determined to do something about it," that means everybody will follow soon in those footsteps.

Everyone, all these associations and all the professions, will soon follow in those footsteps and say, "Well, they're doing something about it. We're being prodded by the government. We'd better

open the doors," and so there will no longer be surprises.

What do we mean by protecting their turf? If one person, for instance, wants to write an exam and that person is being told, "That costs $1,000" -- I'm not going

to mention any names here because we need their co-operation, but if you are going into a profession and you're being told that exam costs you $1,000, it is irresponsible for that profession to say

later on, "Sorry. The $1,000 we told you about is no longer $1,000. Now we are asking you to pay $4,000 for that exam." There are many examples of this kind, and we could stay here all day to cite

them. But since we need everyone's co-operation -- the government, the Liberals, the third party; we need all of us to sit together and to say, "Yes, we want to do something about it."

Two final notes. I've already introduced some of the recommendations that were made by the access report of 1989. Ms Mushinski today is saying we need another

body to make better or more recommendations. We know what these recommendations are. I'm asking the member from Scarborough Centre -- she already knows it. She has good intentions; I have no doubt

about that. But at the same time, we could make much more progress in this issue.

This board should be set up, because I know there's a consensus we will support this bill. If this process will be set up whereby a person or a group of people

will be established, I would only hope this government will go to the sources, like Skills for Change, who have already made recommendations, and have already looked at this in detail. They know

what they want. They know the process in detail. For instance, the Maytree Foundation is well placed not only to make recommendations but to be part of this group of people who will make

recommendations. Ratna Omidvar is of course ready and open to help this government, and there are others.

At this point, I simply want to indicate that we will support this bill. We would hope that it passes rapidly, and we would hope that the plan we've produced

will also have results.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm pleased to join in the debate with respect to the member's resolution dealing with trades and

professions. I want to focus on trades from the perspective of construction trades, auto mechanics, the trades that are tremendous opportunities for our young people to get into.

Coming from an area where there's a major construction boom and obviously a great need for people who are involved in the automobile sector because of the

tremendous amount of commuting that comes out of my area -- from the city of Barrie and throughout the riding, it would be in the area of 30% to 40% commuter traffic every day -- the opportunities

here for access to trades are enormous, and it is something I believe is very important for us to focus on immediately.

Certainly there were measures taken a few years ago to deal with the apprenticeship and training act, but I believe that more can be done, certainly in the form

of encouraging employers to provide the training and the opportunities for young people to choose trades -- I use the construction trades as an example -- and to get involved. Certainly as to the

age of tradesmen, and I use the example of bricklayers, there's a tremendous number in that trade who emigrated from Italy, and the last significant amount of emigration from Italy, I believe, was

in 1968. We're in the year 2001 and those individuals who were in that trade are facing an age -- obviously we need new people to come in and be part of that trade. That's just one example of the

trades.

I think the roadblocks that are involved in trades are with the number of apprenticeships available with a particular employer and with our allowing the employer

to have some kind of leeway with respect to the number of apprentices they are allowed to provide; also, looking at methods of allowing and encouraging small operators, whether involved in

construction, whether it's in the automotive sector, to provide the training.

I've heard from constituents saying, "If the government would provide that training and not stiff me with the paperwork," and maybe we can work through a college

in terms of making sure the college monitors and ensures these individuals abide by the terms of the arrangement, and also look at providing a wage subsidy or wage arrangement with small operators

to encourage them to engage individuals and provide them with that expertise.

A lot of these smaller operators don't have the time to deal with that paperwork and there may not be any economic incentive for them to bring on a person and

pay a certain amount of money, when the person doesn't really know anything and they have to be given the proper training. That's where there's a role the government can play in terms of providing

those opportunities in skilled trades for the smaller operators, to allow them to have some kind of incentive.

I've heard from employers in the electrical trade saying, "We would like to see a greater number of apprenticeships allowed so that we can utilize the manpower

the way we need to, and we can train the people," because they're of a certain size.

So in terms of access, we have great opportunities here to deal with our skilled trades. We have to improve access. I've set out a couple of examples of how that

can be done. I think the member's resolution should be supported.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I'd like to start off by complimenting the member for Scarborough Centre for bringing forward this resolution.

It's a very good resolution that will be helpful for the people of Ontario.

I'd like to make some reference in the beginning to the Premier's Task Force on Rural Economic Renewal and some of the findings we're coming across with it.

Generally, people in this province have been very concerned about taxation. It's one of the reasons we've had a lot of difficulty getting industry to come here. What we were finding out with that

task force was that there is a need for coordination of economic development in communities, skills training and capital. We were out doing some roundtables this past May and June, and the skills

training has moved up significantly since a year ago. There's real concern for skills training here in Ontario. The taxation issue has been taken off the map, thanks to the number of tax cuts we've

had, 166-plus and climbing tax cuts in Ontario, to stimulate the economy. It has done one tremendous job.

We're seeing things out there like, we're being told guidance teachers saying, "Johnny, which university would you like to go to? Oh, you don't want to go to

university? You want to skills train. Well, I went to Queen's," or, "I went to Western, and I think that's where you should go," or mom and dad saying, "You've got to go to university."

That's the way it is: if you go through skills training, you're not quite up to the standards of Ontario, or something along that line, that kind of thinking. We

have to turn that kind of attitude around. The money that can be made and the need for that skills training are absolutely exceptional. There are great jobs out there for those with those

skills.

To use an example, at Loyalist, where there's a committee of manufacturers, they were laying out the scenario of what's happened. In the early 1990s when we were

in the recession the NDP bought us into, they were saying that they had to lay off the senior CEOs because the companies couldn't afford them, and they weren't able to hire any more people because

there was not enough work in these plants. They ended up with a group of people from about age 45 to age 60. Now, all of a sudden, the economic boom is on. The community colleges had shut down the

courses for these skills because there was no call for them, understandably, so now we have community colleges trying to gear up.

Thanks for the introduction of this resolution the member for Scarborough Centre has brought in. Certainly her recommendations are right on with the needs in

Ontario today, looking to foreign-trained people who are coming here, not getting the kind of jobs they have been trained for. Of course we have to watch for the kind of skills they have developed,

the qualifications they have. We know there are lots of universities around the world that don't come close to the standards we have here in Ontario, and to have them come in and expect to be seen

as having the same standards we have would certainly not be right. The academic credential assessment service our government has set up, examining universities and colleges in some 180 countries,

is going to help with that.

Also, we've been recognizing and moving in the right direction. Look back to what the NDP did in 1993. They cut the number of training positions for

physicians. In last year's budget, we invested $3.5 million over three years to up the number. We've now doubled the number of training positions for foreign-trained physicians. In this last

budget, it was some $12 million over the next three years to assist with that.

Things are moving in the right direction. There's no question there are physicians here who are doing jobs that don't use the basic training they have. We'll

be able to acknowledge some of those. I'm very pleased to see that the health critic, on June 4 this year, indicated support for this kind of thing with our foreign-trained physicians. The deputy

leader of the official opposition is indicating similar support. It was great this morning to hear the member from Davenport, in the official opposition, indicating support for this resolution. I

look forward to hearing that the NDP, the third party, will support the resolution put forward by the member for Scarborough Centre. I can indeed enthusiastically support this resolution.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): First of all, I want to commend the member for bringing this subject yet again before this Legislature for

debate. It is an issue that has been on the table of government for quite some time -- yes, even back as far as when the New Democratic Party was in government. The New Democratic Party, when they

were in government, did some quite significant work in tilling the ground and preparing the platform from which to launch an aggressive and progressive approach to this whole very difficult

subject.

However, the government in place today has had six years. You'd think, to hear some of them speak, that they just got into power yesterday, because they

continue to blame any shortage of any sort on previous governments, in particular the government of the New Democrats between 1990 and 1995. We didn't do everything right -- we certainly made our

mistakes -- but we did a lot of things that I think were helpful in some very difficult financial times.

The difficulty this government faces in almost everything it does these days, in almost every challenge presented to it, is that it has no money. It has no

money to pay the fees, the costs of adding new professionals to the fields that are identified here this morning as crying out for attention. That's the big reason behind their not moving quickly

and aggressively in this area, as well as in many other areas: they've given the money away in tax breaks. So we find, whether it's in looking after our drinking water or providing good education

for students or providing assistance for people in need across the province or whether it's looking at the whole area of health care, that we have systems that are simply starving to death. And

because the systems are starving to death, there's no new money for new initiatives.

So even though I compliment the member this morning for bringing this resolution -- it's not a bill, it needs to be noted. This is a resolution, which usually

doesn't have much impact in this place. Bills very, very seldom get through. We had one example yesterday of a private member's bill. You know, we can do some things in here co-operatively and

together if we have the political will, but 99% of the time we don't. What we have here this morning is not a bill but a resolution that simply states something that I think we all see as

motherhood around this place. The big issue is, is the political will present to actually put in place the structures and the resources necessary to recognize the very valuable contribution of the

folks identified here as coming into Canada with tremendous skills, to actually incorporate them into our workaday lives?

I suggest that the government, in looking at all of the other challenges it faces and the need for resources, is going to find this one difficult as well. So I

want to talk about this this morning very briefly in terms of the need for some immediate action and for this government to move. I'm surprised that the member opposite hasn't worked co-operatively

with her government to bring forward a government member's bill that would do what she's suggesting by way of resolution here today and that in fact she doesn't know that the government is already

moving on one front, however incompletely and with some difficulty for some folks, to actually try to get a handle on some of this, and I'll reference that in a few minutes.

The other thing I want to tie this into is what many are referring to these days as the racialization of poverty in this province, the fact that immigrants and

visible minorities in ever-increasing numbers are finding themselves in very difficult financial straits.

I have been travelling the province for about six months now. I've been into 10 communities talking with people about the issue of poverty. More and more it's

becoming obvious to me that there is in fact the phenomenon of the racialization of poverty. I think that when you look at the overwhelming number of new Canadians and immigrants into this country

who are of a visible minority status and the fact that they can't seem to get the ear of government, impress government effectively such that their credentials would be recognized, this is all part

of this whole phenomenon that I'm talking about here and that I'll mention briefly in further comments I will make regarding this issue this morning.

I want to put this discussion that we're having this morning into some political context for folks out there; first of all to say that the issue isn't new.

What has happened recently to bring it to the fore among social justice groups is renewed organizing among immigrant groups. This organizing has been supported recently by the release last year of

a report by Professor Orenstein, written for the city of Toronto. This report restates what we already know, that there is a growing gap in our society. The new piece of information is that in

Toronto, where the majority of immigrant communities reside, this gap is a racialized one; that is, visible minorities are over-represented among the poor.

A new coalition has been formed by the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants. The coalition has targeted the municipal government at the moment, but

will keep the provincial government in its sights. So I think it's important to put this information on the record here this morning as we, at the provincial level, take a look at this very

important issue.

The Conservatives have been toying with this issue using some small initiatives as simply public relations tools, which is what they're doing across the board

in so many other areas simply because they don't have the resources necessary to actually fix things that they have broken. They have brought in an American company, World Education Services, to

assess credentials for a cost of about $200. However, this adds up to nothing given that professionals will nevertheless face the very professional bodies that have always refused to recognize

studies obtained abroad.

I remind people of a private member's bill that was before this House while this government was in power during its last term. Tony Silipo, a colleague of

mine, who had some tremendous interest and had done some very significant work in this area, tabled a bill entitled Access to Professions and Trades. It would have created an agency that would

assess the credentials of foreign-trained immigrants and make recommendations for the upgrading of training. The most important thing the bill does is that once the agency has assessed the training

of foreign-trained professionals and established equivalence with Ontario's requirements, the professional bodies would be compelled to grant credentials, which would have been a huge, huge move

forward.

Let's look at the current context within which this piece of business is floating here today. Our caucus's initiative on the need to ensure fair access to

professions and trades for internationally trained workers comes at a time when the province is increasing its reliance on individuals with internationally acquired skills to meet labour shortages

arising in various industries and sectors. The shortage of domestic labour is expected to grow in the construction industry, in some service sector industries and in key public service areas, such

as health and education.

Canadian immigration policy has prioritized the selection of what it calls the best and the brightest, as key to ensuring the country's continued economic

success as the baby boom generation nears retirement age. Moreover, the trend toward greater free trade relations with the rest of the Americas, as well as the globalization of many industries,

suggest increased mobility of skilled labour from country to country, necessitating standardized and timely processes for granting licensure for internationally trained persons.

Ontario receives about 53% of Canada's immigrants, 66% of whom are of working age with post-secondary education and 28% of whom can be characterized as highly

skilled professionals and tradespeople.

The economic importance of this skilled immigrant population has been established both by the federal government and the Ontario provincial government. It is

argued that promoting fair access to professions and trades will contribute to Ontario's economic prosperity and help solve Ontario's skills shortages in key sectors, which is why I'm surprised

that the government hasn't moved more quickly than simply allowing a private member to bring a resolution here this morning.

Action to deal with the problem will reduce social and economic costs related to underemployment and, in some cases, social assistance. On the other hand, it

will ensure that internationally trained individuals can contribute to the economy and ensure that the benefits foreseen by immigration policy, the benefits of the immigrants' skills and expertise,

can be enjoyed by Ontario.

To date though, the problem of barriers to access to professions and trades for internationally trained individuals still remains to be adequately addressed. I

suggest that this resolution this morning won't get us any closer.

A number of Canadian jurisdictions have taken some steps to deal with aspects of the problem. In 1991 the federal government established the Canadian

Information Centre for International Credentials. Its role is to advocate for the collection, organization and distribution of information. An International Credential Evaluation Services

organization is operating in Canada with a focus on academic credentials and works to establish equivalencies between universities worldwide. However, most licensing bodies don't recognize its

credentials, which takes us back to the private member's bill of Mr Silipo.

Since 1995, the government of Saskatchewan has been using International Qualifications Assessment Services to assess international qualifications against

Saskatchewan's standards. Though contracted by the government, individuals pay the service fees directly to that organization. Saskatchewan has a two-tier licensing process, with physicians from a

select number of countries able to obtain temporary licences for five years, during which time they are expected to meet the residence requirements.

In Quebec, Service des équivalences performs a similar function to Saskatchewan's, providing its recommendations to licensing bodies and universities and

colleges. All immigrants can apply to have their credentials assessed, and the service is also available to those granted visas but still abroad. As early as 1973, Quebec established the Office des

professions du Quebec with responsibilities for liaison with licensing bodies, providing advice to government on areas of potential conflict relating to professions and informing the public about

their rights.

In Manitoba, there is an immigrant credentials and labour market branch of the department of heritage and citizenship responsible for some program initiatives

to assist international trained professionals and tradespeople -- which goes back to Mr Ruprecht's comment earlier that this member, when she was minister of that portfolio in this government,

could have done pretty much the same thing -- with credential assessments and alternative career planning. It was established in response to a 1992 Manitoba task force on immigrant credentials

report entitled Issues, Trends and Options. There is a separate office in the Ministry of Health that deals with international medical graduates, although the Manitoba College of Physicians and

Surgeons maintains control over granting medical licences.

British Columbia has an Industrial and Apprenticeship Commission responsible for vocational apprenticeship and trades certification with particular

responsibility for international trained tradespeople. Some community organizations are considering court challenges of the discriminatory practices of the licensing bodies.

In Ontario, the provincial government has identified the need for information about licensing processes and has created fact sheets outlining the licensing

procedures for a number of professions and trades. However, it was not until recently that it mandated the establishment of a credential assessment service. The Ontario government has contracted an

American credential assessment company, World Education Services, to set up a credential assessment service. Its Toronto office will be managed by Timothy Owen.

Community and advocacy organizations have expressed concerns about the government's choice of an American company with minimum consultation. A number of

regulatory bodies have already indicated that they are not interested in honouring the credentials assessments of the new agency.

Recently an access to professions and trades advocacy network was establish to coordinate the work of the non-governmental organizations who want the

government to take meaningful action to deal with the problem. I suggest they want them to take more action than simply bringing forward a private member's resolution to the House here on the very

day that we're going to rise for the summer.

A recent report by Dr Robert McKendry to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care suggests that the current physician shortages will be intensified given the

demographic changes, increase in female doctors and younger doctors whose preference is for limited workloads. The shortage in underserviced areas is currently 534 physicians and growing, while the

whole of Ontario has a shortage of 1,000 physicians and growing.

An increasing number of internationally trained professionals and tradespeople are relocating to border sites and acquiring employment in their fields in the

United States. Others are waiting to get their Canadian citizenship and then relocating to the United States. The American states seem to have more flexible systems than Ontario does. This

represents a new brain drain from Canada and Ontario.

If the member bringing forth this resolution this morning indicates to us that this government is finally going to take this issue seriously, then I add my

100% support, and I could suggest that our caucus will probably lend that support as well. However, don't disappoint us yet once again.

The Deputy Speaker: I would like to welcome to the Legislature this morning in the members' west gallery, Tonie Ambrose, who is from the fine

city of Sarnia and a teacher at St Christopher's secondary school, and the sister of the member from Sarnia-Lambton. Welcome.

Further debate?

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): It is indeed a pleasure to join in the debate this morning about Mrs Mushinski's

resolution on access to professions and trades.

I must say that it is unfortunate -- I'll try and defend the opposition, which is not usual for me -- that only two members, one from the Liberal side and one

the jobs and training. That really completely blows my mind. Maybe they'll get another opportunity another day. So, I'm surprised.

Most everybody in this country at some point in time was an immigrant, whether they came 200 years ago or two days ago. The beauty of this country is that

everybody is equal, whether you came yesterday or whether you came many years ago. I am very proud and happy that, even though it was not my choice, it was my parent's choice, at the age of 17 I

had the privilege of coming to this country in 1968. My story is similar to many immigrant's stories. Many of the members who were born here, their parents or their grandparents went through

similar situations.

One of the things a new immigrant faces is the lack of information. I will give you a specific example. I met a doctor recently who was an active general

family physician in Rexdale-Etobicoke. He told me that for eight years, when he was in BC, he had no idea how to access, how to get into the profession. The people he was living with -- he was

working in lumber mills -- had no idea how to access the system. Then he happened to come to Ontario. He was able to talk to some people with similar interests, with similar difficulties they had

gone through. He is now a very productive member of the medical profession.

I know in Mrs Mushinski's resolution -- and she has spoken so eloquently, and she's so compassionate about this issue, because in her community, as in my

community, there are a lot of immigrants living there, people from every walk of life. We are so blessed in Canada and Ontario. We have people from more than 100 countries in the world. They speak

many languages, and they live in harmony. We talk every day about the unrest that's going on throughout the world. People, in the name of religion, different languages and different customs, are

fighting. We are blessed here in Canada that everybody is living harmoniously.

Coming back to adequate information, it is very important to have that information and, at the same time, fair assessment and tools. A lot of times the federal

immigration department, with good intentions, advertises in countries and brings in people, professionals we feel are going to be needed in Canada, and then they just abandon them. There is no

continuing effort made to integrate them. They leave it up to the provinces to do whatever they have to do.

I'm very happy that our government is already taking initiatives in terms of $12 million that we are going to be spending over the next three years to help

foreign-trained individuals employ their skills more quickly in Ontario and, as you've heard previously in the House, $3.5 million over three years announced in last year's budget. We are, as a

government, doing a lot of different things to try to integrate those people. Can more be done? Yes, absolutely. There's much more to be done. The new immigrant, as we all have been at some point

in time, needs that one break, the so-called Canadian experience. I urge people to give them that opportunity.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Scarborough Centre has two minutes to respond.

Ms Mushinski: I want to take this time to thank the honourable members from Davenport, Sault Ste Marie, Northumberland, Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford

and Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale for their significant and substantial contribution to the debate this morning.

In the limited time I have, I believe I should just address a couple of issues that were raised with respect to our government's commitment to improving access

to trades and professions.

On June 14, 2001, Minister Clement announced that the government would double the number of foreign doctors being assessed and trained each year to practise in

Ontario, to 90 from 36, as part of its commitment to provide Ontarians with better access to doctors. The 2001 budget committed $12 million over three years to help foreign-trained individuals

employ their skills more quickly in Ontario; $3.5 million over three years was announced in last year's budget to support bridging programs for foreign-trained nurses and pharmacists. Clearly, our

government has recognized the absolute need to improve fair access to licensing and practising in Ontario.

I just want to leave with this one note. I have a major manufacturing company in my riding that manufactures chilling systems. I did a tour of their plant and

was particularly impressed by the gender and ethnic mix of the workers. The manager of that plant said it was absolutely essential that his workplace reflect the community it serves. Not only does

it create a stronger environment, but it helps to boost his sales abroad.

The Deputy Speaker: This completes the time allocated for this ballot item. I will place the questions related to this ballot item at 12

noon.

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES

AMENDMENT ACT

(WATER SOURCE PROTECTION), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RESSOURCES EN EAU

DE L'ONTARIO

(PROTECTION DES SOURCES

D'ALIMENTATION EN EAU)

Mrs Dombrowsky moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 79,

An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act with respect to water source protection / Projet de loi 79, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les ressources en

eau de l'Ontario en ce qui concerne la protection des sources d'alimentation en eau.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member has up to 10 minutes for her presentation.

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): I am pleased to have the opportunity this morning to address the Legislative

Assembly with a piece of proposed legislation that is entitled

An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act with respect to water source protection.

Fresh water is undoubtedly one of the most precious of all of our natural resources. The people of Ontario are most concerned about two things, I would say,

that relate to our water resources. The first, of course, and the one that we hear so very much about now in the media, is water quality. Certainly we recognize as a province and as a government

that we have some very serious responsibilities to ensure that the water the people of Ontario have access to is safe to drink.

The other issue that Ontarians are most concerned about is quantity. We seem to think that we live in a province -- and we certainly do have and are especially

blessed with abundant water resources. But there are many communities across the province where water sources have been compromised, where water levels have been significantly lower than what has

been their typical and traditional level.

I must say that I have been most heartened by the response I have received from people from across Ontario who support what is being proposed in the

Legislative Assembly this morning in Bill 79. This bill is very similar to a private member's bill that I introduced in the last session, Bill 121. However, this bill does have an addition. Bill 79

includes provisions that would require the Ministry of the Environment when it receives requests for permits to take water to notify the municipalities and the conservation authorities of the area

where the permit would be granted.

While the direction right now is that the ministry may notify, this bill would change that and it would require that these municipalities and conservation

authorities would be notified.

The addition, the difference between the present bill and the one that I introduced before, would require the director, when considering permits to take water,

would consider them in light of the statement of environmental values.

The following is an excerpt from a backgrounder on the statement of environmental values:

"Statements of environmental values are a means for government ministries to record their commitment to the environment and be accountable for ensuring

consideration of the environment in their decisions. The Environmental Bill of Rights requires a statement of environmental values from 14 government ministries.

"The statement of environmental values explains how the purposes of the Environmental Bill of Rights will be applied when decisions that might significantly

affect the environment are made by the ministry and how consideration of the purposes of the Environmental Bill of Rights will be integrated with other considerations, including social, economic

and scientific considerations that are a part of decision-making in the ministry.

"It is each minister's responsibility to take every reasonable step to ensure that the statement of environmental values is considered when decisions that

might significantly affect the environment are made within that particular ministry."

I believe this is a significant addition to the proposed legislation, and I will further explain that in my remarks.

Also, I would like to make reference to a statement that was made during the first days of the hearings at the Walkerton inquiry, when Dr Kenneth Howard spoke

about the problems with water-taking permits in the province, saying granting them was "like writing a cheque on your bank account without knowing how much money is coming in." Howard spoke in

detail of the need for municipalities to have an understanding of the water use in their region.

I know when this bill was debated previously in the Legislature that it was presented by some of the government members that this bill was not necessary

because that was happening, that notification was getting to municipalities and conservation authorities. However, I have a volume of correspondence with me this morning that very clearly indicates

such is not the case. Municipalities have been made aware of significant permits to take water within their jurisdiction only after the fact, only after it has been issued. In some cases, it has

presented some significant problems or concerns within the community, and municipalities would feel that they have not had an opportunity to provide the kind of input that should have been received

by the ministry and certainly would be in keeping even with the statement of environmental values to assist the ministry to really appreciate a fuller ecosystem perspective on the issuing of the

permits.

There are a couple of examples I would like to share with you this morning. In Hastings county, there was a permit granted at the spring head of a cold-water

stream that feeds water sources miles downstream. Fortunately, this permit was revoked.

Also, in Perth there is a company that has been granted a permit of 4.5 million litres per day, and the people within that community are most concerned. This

permit was issued to remove water from the Tay River. The Tay River is fed from Bob's Lake, which is in my riding, and it is part of the watershed that includes the historic Rideau Canal. This

permit has been appealed under the Environmental Review Tribunal. In the hearing it was argued that issuing the permit without taking an ecosystem approach to the decision-making is really setting

a precedent, and not a healthy one, I would add.

The ministry's statement of environmental values is not enshrined in legislation. This statement is part of the Environmental Bill of Rights. However, in this

particular hearing the ministry's lawyers have argued that it is not binding to consider this statement because it's not incorporated in legislation. Bill 79 would require that the ministry

consider the statement of environmental values.

Why take an ecosystem approach when considering permits to take water? I would like to refer to the Ministry of the Environment's own business plan for

2000-01, where it indicates that one of its key commitments for the year is, "To build a better, stronger, clearer environmental agenda in keeping with our statement of environmental values. The

ministry's mandate, articulated in the statement of environmental values that underpins all its activities, is to protect the quality of the natural environment so as to safeguard the ecosystem and

human health and to foster the efficient use and conservation of resources."

So, within the ministry's own business plan it recognizes the importance of the statement of environmental values. However, there is also precedent within the

province where it is argued that because it's not part of legislation, the ministry is not bound to that. I think that is an inconsistency that needs to be addressed. For that reason, I believe

it's very appropriate that it would be incorporated in a piece of legislation that is designed to protect water sources. I have a number of quotes from individuals, municipalities and conservation

authorities who believe this as well.

The town of Bancroft has said to me in a letter that in the past they have indicated their frustration with the current legislation regarding the

taking-of-water permits. "It is completely inappropriate for a municipality to be notified ... after their issuance. Your proposed bill is a positive step in protecting and maintaining our delicate

water resources."

In this particular community, the water source is very vulnerable. So I encourage members on both sides of the House, all three parties, to support

an act that

I believe will protect water sources in the province of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): I'd like to address the comments made by the member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and

Addington. She has spent some time in her remarks this morning dealing with two outstanding hearings that are going on in the province of Ontario; one is Walkerton and the other, which I believe

started earlier this week, is the Environmental Review Tribunal in Perth.

She went even further. In her press release of June 26, she elaborated on that. Most of the press release dealt not with this bill but with what's going on in

these hearings. I submit to the Legislature that the sole purpose of what she is doing in this place this morning is to prejudice those hearings. She has no right to do that. Government members

cannot comment. It makes it very difficult for us on this side to debate the bill, because we cannot prejudice those hearings. She is prejudicing those hearings. She seems to believe that she has

more rights than we do, and that's not true. This legislation should not be prejudicing those hearings.

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Two years ago in much of Ontario we were so worried about the lower-than-average precipitation that

we'd experienced for close to three consecutive years. Certainly in 1999 there were water bans in many municipalities across the province. Members may know that in my riding farmers were very

concerned about the continuation of irrigation-based agriculture. This was a problem in both 1999 and 1998, and I certainly received many calls about the shortage of water. Fortunately, rain did

come in the summer of 2000 -- too much of it. It was too wet, it was too cold and it resulted in poor crops. However, we cannot forget that we had a drought comparable to what we had well over 50

years ago. As policy-makers, we should continue to strive for measures to make sure that we are prepared to meet any future shortages of water.

The present system, Ontario's current permit-to-take-water program, is designed to prevent the interference of water taking with existing uses of water.

Farmers in my riding can attest to the fact that these applications are reviewed very carefully. This is done not only to prevent interference but also to ensure that there will be no adverse

impact on our environment. For example, conditions on permits to take water may include the restriction that takers may not withdraw more than 10% of stream flow, in order to protect natural water

course functions.

The Environmental Bill of Rights office has clear procedures that must be followed to notify interested parties about proposed water takings, including a

minimum posting of 30 days on the EBR registry.

The Ontario government has shown international leadership as well with regard to water takings. People may recall that in 1999 we brought into force the

water-taking and transfer regulation, which requires ministry approving directors to consider ecosystem impacts and to consult on water takings, as well as to prohibit the bulk transfer of water

from Ontario's major water basins, the Great Lakes, essentially.

One year prior, in 1998, the Ministry of the Environment established the groundwater management studies fund under the provincial water protection fund to

assist municipalities and public utility commissions to undertake studies to ensure the long-term use and protection of our groundwater resources. On March 31, 2000, based on approved applications,

grants were prepaid to give municipalities greater flexibility in the management of their cash flow.

I do want to return to the farm situation, intensely farmed areas in Ontario, my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant and in particular on the Norfolk sand plain.

The Ministry of the Environment has encouraged the farm community to consider what is referred to as off-line pond storage in order to take water into storage at less critical times of the year.

Locally, we refer to these ponds as retention ponds.

On May 3, healthy futures for Ontario agriculture approved a third water supply enhancement project in the Norfolk area. OMAFRA generously granted $326,303 to

the Norfolk Federation of Agriculture for this project. The purpose of the project is to assist farmers interested in improving their water supplies for agricultural uses.

The same type of project also received $233,000 just last November. From this project, 27 ponds have been created or expanded to store a total of something

like 23 million gallons of water. This is storing water when it's abundant, primarily in the spring of the year. It's then used to irrigate crops when water levels in local streams become low.

Other offshoot activities of this program include creating impoundments, conducting engineering studies, drilling wells and designing water control structures.

Also, last December the Ministry of the Environment announced $150,000 for the Big Creek water basin study. As a result, the Long Point Region Conservation

Authority is conducting research to provide a comprehensive information program about both surface and groundwater sources, as well as the interaction of surface and groundwater.

I present this as an example locally. We have a situation where, rather than pointing fingers at each other, farmers, conservationists, local businesses,

resource agencies and municipal representatives in my riding have agreed to act together to guard against low water situations in the future.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I have some appreciation for the intent of this bill, Bill 79, but indeed I am extremely disappointed in the

member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington, seeing that press release that she put out on June 26, making reference to the inquiry at Walkerton, making reference to the Environmental Review

Tribunal in Perth. This is blatantly trying to have political interference in our judicial procedures. That indeed is wrong and very unfortunate.

I'd like to relate an incident, while I was the parliamentary assistant with the Ministry of the Environment, that happened as it relates to water. I believe

it was 1998. There was a request for a bulk water permit to take water from Lake Superior. The amount of water they requested per year -- it was over a five-year period, but on an annual basis --

would equal the amount of water flowing from Lake Michigan into the Mississippi through that man-made canal there. There was a big misunderstanding on the volume of water and what it was about and

who had responsibility. Ontario had a responsibility: how would that water-taking permit affect that body of water? That little bit of water was not going to affect it very much. It was the federal

government that had to do with exports and imports, and that's where it fell down. Of course, typical of Liberals federally, they dithered over this. Finally, because the feds wouldn't do anything,

Ontario brought in a regulation that would limit the amount of water moving from one water basin to another by a maximum of 20-litre containers.

What's going on now in Newfoundland? Their Liberal premier, Roger Grimes, is saying he'd like to revisit this because they'd like to export water. This is

after their Liberal government in November 1999 endorsed a Canada-wide accord to prohibit bulk water removal from Canadian watersheds. This is after they signed that. Later, in December 1999, they

enacted a Water Resources Protection Act which prohibits removal of water in containers greater than 30 litres. Now they reversed, just a year and a half later -- typical of Liberals. They now want

to export water, which again comes under federal jurisdiction. I just thought it would be interesting when we're talking about water-taking permits to bring you up to date on that.

Just highlighting a few of the things our government has been doing here in Ontario to protect our groundwater, we've brought in a provincial groundwater

monitoring network, some $6 million over three years, looking at 400 sites and 38 watersheds. We have a provincial water protection fund, some $4.3 million, looking at 34 groundwater studies,

looking at possible contamination, looking at where the groundwater is for better understanding of aquifers. We're looking at long-term water and sewer infrastructure, with a tremendous investment,

particularly through the OSTAR grants, some $240 million there. That, by the way, came from the Premier's Task Force on Rural Economic Renewal, our interim report to the Minister of Finance back in

April 2000.

Also we've been looking at the intensive agricultural operations, looking at how manure and various other soil nutrients may be applied or may not be applied:

extensive consultation on that all across the province, over a year and a half. The bill has been introduced and we'll continue with consultations prior to second reading.

In many ways we are doing a tremendous amount for the groundwater in Ontario, providing protection for it, certainly a big step with soil nutrient management

and looking at that in many different ways. Also, ensuring compliance through environmental SWAT teams is being very effective across the province to ensure that our groundwater and our surface

water is not contaminated, at least purposely contaminated.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on Bill 79.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I want to, first of all, commend my colleague Mrs Dombrowsky for bringing forth this piece of

legislation. She has been in the forefront of raising the issue in her riding about water-taking permits and the effect they can have on the province.

There are always those who are going to say -- and this is one of the problems on the environment. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the

Environment is in the House this morning and would know this. They always say, "Well, it's going to create jobs." Whatever it is, it's going to create jobs, and it doesn't matter what it's going to

do to the environment as long as it creates jobs. There are a lot of jobs that can be and have been created in this province that in fact do not have a detrimental effect on the environment in

Ontario. Therefore, I think we have to proceed cautiously.

We have the Red Tape Commission of the government which has extraordinary powers to interfere in each of the ministries. Certainly during the Walkerton inquiry

which is on at the present time and at which the Premier will have to testify tomorrow, it has come to light just how much power the Red Tape Commission has. I guess the point I make is that if you

are thinking of the ecosystem out there, if you're thinking of jobs that are good for both our economic situation in Ontario and our environmental situation, then you would not proceed with those

which simply create jobs at great expense to the environment. That is why I think the member has had to bring forward this piece of legislation.

In July 2000 the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, Gordon Miller, put out a special report -- this was not his annual report -- entitled The Protection of

Ontario's Groundwater and Intensive Farming: Special Report to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It was July 27 of last year and we can recall that at that time, particularly during the election

campaign, the Conservative government was saying, "Don't worry. We're looking after these water-taking permits. There's a moratorium out there. We're looking after it. Everything's fine."

It reminds me of the testimony I heard yesterday at the Walkerton inquiry where ministers were saying, "Don't worry, be happy, everything's fine, nothing's

going to happen." We see that when it comes to water-taking permits, sometimes the last people to find out are the local municipality or conservation authority or the residents in the area. Those

of us in the opposition, and I suspect members of the government, often get their information from local groups that see that something is going on. They may not know what that something is, but

something is going on. There's a water-taking permit that's going to be granted at a time when residents of rural Ontario, particularly, are wrestling with the problem of low water levels in many

places. They're going to be concerned, not only about the impact on the quantity of water, but the quality of water as well, as the water diminishes in its capacity to assimilate some of the

contaminants that are around, so there's more concentrated contaminant.

Let me repeat. This is the environmental commissioner saying in July of last summer: "MOE" -- the Ministry of the Environment -- "has not effectively used the

EBR" -- the Environmental Bill of Rights -- "and the new water-taking and transfer regulation to manage conflict over groundwater. In the past few years, many residents have contacted the ECO" --

office of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario -- "because they are concerned with the lack of information contained in registry notices, the fact that notices on the registry are the only

forms of notice provided, and that the effect that their comments had on the decision-making process was not adequately explained. In some cases, the ECO encouraged these residents to write to the

MOE and request that the ministry provide enhanced public participation opportunities, such as public meetings, open houses or even mediation, on these proposals. To date, MOE has provided no

evidence that these requests were seriously considered or that this type of public consultation has ever been carried out, as provided for by the EBR."

So we have Mrs Dombrowsky bringing forward this bill, not only on behalf of her own constituents but on behalf of the people of Ontario to try to address what

the environmental commissioner says is a genuine problem.

Let me go on to tell you what else he's saying. "Conflicting information in the media about MOE policies on groundwater has added to the public uneasiness. In

the spring of 1999, the media widely reported that MOE had placed a moratorium on the issuance of new PTTWs" -- water-taking permits -- "in certain parts of the province. In response to ECO

inquiries, MOE clarified that a `moratorium' was never imposed but indicated the ministry was applying increased scrutiny to reviewing PTTW applications. Yet, for many months, many media sources

and some government officials continued to report that a moratorium on the issue of new PTTWs was in place. Furthermore, information about the changes to the PTTW review process was not posted on

the registry for public notice and comment."

When the commissioner was asked about this, he used terminology that if we were applying it to one another in this House, we couldn't do it, because he said

that the Ministry of the Environment -- I don't say anyone in this House -- was misleading the people of Ontario, when he reported to us, because they said there was a moratorium and there was no

moratorium. That was a very great concern at that time to the Environmental Commissioner. I'm not saying it as an opposition person. There's a person who is neutral, is an officer of this House and

certainly was the person favoured for the position by members of the government.

It says, "In October 1999, the Minister of the Environment indicated that ministry staff had, as of May 1999, updated their procedures `to include strictly

defined time limits or expiry dates on permits.'" He goes on to say, "The public needs to be confident that MOE is managing Ontario's groundwater effectively. Our review suggests that MOE must

provide guidance to staff on how to apply the criteria set out under the new regulation and staff need better data to make informed decisions about groundwater."

This is why the member is concerned. This is why Mrs Dombrowsky has brought this before the House. Does it affect the specific case she's talking about in her

riding? It does. That's our job, to protect our constituents. Multiply that across the province. I was in Walkerton last summer. I was invited to a public meeting. I recall meeting, at that time,

people from adjacent villages and towns who were concerned about water-taking in a specific area of the province. That was their area.

I know there's big money in it. I know there are a lot of people waiting to make money and they would like to circumvent any process that's there. The member

has set out criteria that Ministry of the Environment staff should use before anything in the way of permits are granted to take water. The situation she has drawn to our attention, the Tay water

deal, as it is referred to, is one that requires great scrutiny. I can certainly understand, sympathize with and support her opposition in this particular case. It is passing strange that no one on

the government side seems to be overly concerned about that.

There was some testimony early on in the Walkerton inquiry. This is by Dr Ken Howard. He's an expert on water. "During the first day of hearings at the

Walkerton inquiry, Dr Kenneth Howard spoke about the problems with water-taking permits in the province, saying granting them was `like writing a cheque on your bank account without knowing how

much money is coming in.' Howard spoke in detail of the need for municipalities to have an understanding of water use in the regions."

We know that water levels over the past several years, including the year 2000, have been very low and rural residents are concerned about dry wells. Water

levels in lakes and streams are low. The International Joint Commission on the Great Lakes has issued warnings about water levels.

We have the bill that is presented by Mrs Dombrowsky to the members of this House for consideration. I think that the stipulations she has in this bill are

very strong, that we have to ensure ministry staff must look at these water-taking permits from an environmental protection point of view and that there must be an ecosystem approach. That's why

she says, in her bill, that the ministry's environmental protection strategy will place priority, first, on preventing and, second, on minimizing the creation of pollutants that can damage the

environment. When the creation of pollutants cannot be avoided, the ministry's priority will be to prevent the release to the environment and, second, to minimize the release. In the event that

significant environmental harm is caused, action will be taken to ensure that those responsible for the harm remediate it and prevent a recurrence.

She also says that the ministry will exercise a precautionary approach in its decision-making, especially when there's uncertainty about the risk presented by

particular pollutants or class of pollutants. The ministry will exercise caution in favour of the environment.

This is a very sensible bill. This is the kind of bill that members of this House should be supporting. Frankly, if I had my druthers, as they say, I would

rather the Ministry of the Environment had brought in this bill some time ago. I think it is virtually out of control in this province. The water-taking permits are out of control. There is a

danger that a very valuable resource, that being water, will be lost to the people of this province. It'll happen before you can blink your eyes, in this particular case.

So do we need the provisions of this bill? Yes. Is it something that sensibly anyone in any political party could support? The answer to that is yes.

We are seeing unfolding at the Walkerton inquiry, day after day, concerns about the quality and quantity of water in this province. We had the former -- I

would say a man with a great reputation, a highly regarded person who would have praise heaped upon him -- medical officer of health of Ontario, Dr Richard Schabas, say that the Ontario government

turned its back on water safety in this province, on public health in this province, that he sat across from the Premier and the Premier turned his back on that. He has had warnings and others have

had warnings about this problem.

The member has chosen a specific area to address her bill to. I'm supportive of that. I suspect that in their heart of hearts virtually everybody in this House

is supportive and I urge all members of the House to support a bill which is there to protect the environment, to do something which the government has chosen to this point in time not to do of its

own volition.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I want this morning to say thanks to the member from Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington for bringing

this piece of business before us, particularly in light of what is going on in Walkerton: the inquiry and the very real interest that people out there have right now in the question of the

environment and air and water, the ecosystem and everything else represented by that very important public trust that we all have here as members of this Legislature.

I suggest to the government that they need not be afraid of this bill. It is indeed a modest and reasonable offering of something you could do to protect one

of those very valuable commodities that we can so easily take for granted in this wonderful country and province: water. Who would have thought, 10, 15 or 20 years ago, sitting at that lake by your

cottage or out swimming at a public beach or on a boat, that we would be in the circumstance we find ourselves in today with the amount of water that we have in this province and in this country,

that we would have moved so quickly and so irresponsibly to now be at a point where we poison each other? It's not just water, it's air, it's everything to do with the environment, and we need to

step back and take a very serious and close look at what we're doing, particularly in light of some of the dialogue that has been going on now this past week at Walkerton and when we begin to

understand the lack of accountability and the lack of taking of responsibility by those who have been put in charge by this government where the environment is concerned -- the passing of the buck,

the not listening to very important information that was flowing back and forth.

The only hero in this whole thing, if there's a hero -- it's very difficult to find a hero in this kind of scenario unfolding -- is perhaps the previous

Minister of Health, Mr Wilson, who I think needs to be given at least some credit for having raised the alarm, for having run the flag up the pole, for having put on the red light here to say to

the government and the Premier, by sending his deputy minister to that very infamous meeting, "Hang on. You should be doing what this bill is calling, in another instance, the government to do,

which is to take into account the impact that your decisions re the cutback in the funding of the Ministry of the Environment is going to have on the public health of not only the people but all of

the ecosystem as it exists in this province today."

People in this chamber and across the province who have heard me over the last six months will know I've been saying that there's nothing more fundamental to

the responsibility that we have here in this place of government, being the conscience of the community of the province of Ontario, than the protection of life, that which we do to make sure that

people out there who are at risk and who are vulnerable, in the so many ways that any one of us could become at any time in our lives in the world we live in today, are looked after, that we're

providing the resources necessary, that we're providing the checks and balances necessary, that we're dealing with these folks in a way that speaks to their inherent value and quality; that we as

government take up that task and responsibility and, more than anything else we do, deal with it in a priority way, in an aggressive and generous way so that when organizations like the United

Nations say to the rest of the world that Ontario is a wonderful place to live, that we have all kinds of things in place to look after people, that we've learned how to build community so

everybody's included and valued, in fact that's really what's happening.

I have to tell you, in the area of poverty and where vulnerable and at-risk people are concerned, it's becoming more and more obvious out there that this

government is dropping the ball on that, that they're not taking seriously their responsibility. In fact, even more than that, they're going out of their way to make it ever more difficult for

people who are experiencing poverty, who are having some difficulty participating in the communities they live in, who are having some difficulty putting ends together so they can feed their

families. Every week we come in here this government is introducing, under the leadership of the Minister of Community and Social Services, ever more stringent and narrow requirements to get the

very basic resources they need to look after themselves.

I suggest to you, Minister, that when it comes to the environment, it's of equal importance. If we don't look after those things that support and give life in

the first place, the ecosystem, our water and our air and our trees and wildlife, ultimately it will come back and get us all. I don't know about you, but I go home on weekends and get a moment to

sit in my backyard. I look at the trees growing in the ravine behind my house and I thank God for the wonderful nature we have, those trees that take carbon monoxide and make oxygen out of it and

give us all that nice fresh air we so appreciate, those of us who live in northern Ontario particularly. I think, wouldn't it be awful if somebody came along tomorrow and simply cut those trees

down so they could make a few bucks by selling the lumber or making some paper out of them, not considering for a second the impact that would have on the environment we have come to

appreciate.

Up in northern Ontario we look at a lake like Lake Superior. For the most part, it's still clean. It's still a lake where you can scoop water with your hand

and drink it, in most parts. There are spots now, hot spots, that have been identified by international committees charged with looking at that whole area who are saying that if we're not careful,

even Lake Superior, the biggest, by volume, inland mass of water in the world, is in threat of being polluted, if you can imagine. Any of you who have swum or tried to swim in some of the other

great lakes, particularly in southern Ontario, and see signs up, "Swim at your own risk" or "Beaches closed," because of high levels of pollutants in the water, must be asking yourselves the

question, how did we get to where we are and what can we do to improve this situation so we can send our kids to the lake, so we can go to the lake ourselves and actually swim without feeling like

we might be infected in some way, so we can drink that water, so we don't have to be continually pouring more and more chemicals into that water which cause all kinds of health problems, so we can

be proactive where this very important life source is concerned?

I'll tell you, this government has a penchant for turning everything we here have responsibility for and have decided over a number of years, through various

colours of political parties, we should be looking after from a common, good perspective, that which we all have some stake in and have some responsibility for and need to be taking some action to

protect and to share with others in a way that reflects the democracy in which we live -- this government has a penchant for turning that responsibility over to the private sector. I suggest that's

in many ways what happened in terms of the drinking water at Walkerton. You turned the testing of water over to a company whose main interest isn't in the provision of clean water or tests that

suggest what you need to do in order to make sure that your water is clean, but is in the bottom line, is in producing profits for itself and for its investors. When that's the priority, don't be

surprised if what you end up with at the end of the day is a calamity such as what happened in Walkerton.

You've done the same thing with the delivery of services to those who are vulnerable and at risk in our community. You've turned over the design and the

delivery of those programs to those most vulnerable and sensitive of our citizens to a multinational corporation called Andersen Consulting. Their first priority is to take advantage of the very

generous contract you've signed with them that says they get a percentage of anything they save by way of take-back from the poor in our communities. So don't be surprised if people start dying on

the streets of Toronto. Don't be surprised if a lot of individuals out there who are already challenged with so many of the maladies that affect us as human beings these days, many of them of a

mental health nature, don't start, because of a different attack every week on their ability to look after themselves and pay for the rent and put food on the table and clothe themselves, thinking

about ways to just kind of chuck it in and become suicidal.

I was in Ottawa, the backyard of the Minister of Community and Social Services, on Friday. We had just a whole host of people between 2 o'clock and 8 o'clock

in the central block on the Hill, the main Legislature of this country, come forward and talk to us about the devastating impact of some of the decisions made by this government on programs that

they count on for their very existence, and how the biggest decision they make every day when they get up now, because of the onslaught that never ends, is whether to live or whether to die. That's

pretty serious business. You can't push it any further than that.

This government has pushed us all to the wall where dealing with our very basic needs is concerned. Now, in this instance, we're dealing with those life

sources -- the environment. This bill that we're debating here this morning that I hope the government will find, in its sense of responsibility, to support, is, as I said, a very modest and

reasonable request that simply people talk to each other when decisions are made about the taking of water so that we can together determine what the overall environmental impact is going to be,

both immediate and long-term, so that we don't hurt ourselves, so that we don't diminish those elements that are required for our very life.

Anybody who's been watching the lakes over the last two or three years, particularly people who have boats, will understand that that water goes up and down,

and it's not because some big hydro company shuts off the dam or opens the dam; it's because of environmental considerations and concerns. Our water levels in all of the lakes in northern Ontario

for the last two or three years have been significantly lower than they've been historically over the years. That's primarily, if you look at that, because of things that we've done in other areas

of the environment and not protecting it so that we get the regular cycle of precipitation and rain and snow and the burn-off of water up into the clouds again so that it comes down. That's not

happening in the same way that it used to.

So the issue of having enough water, the issue of making sure that those lakes stay viable and vital, becomes even more important and speaks to the importance

of this piece of legislation that's tabled before us here today; that we take whatever action is necessary; that we leave political considerations aside for a few minutes and recognize in the

interest of the public good, in the interest of protecting our environment, one of those life sources, water, that we all depend on for our lives; that we do the right thing and pass this bill,

because if we don't, we will continue down a road that will see us giving away, taking away, turning our back on, as the Premier did not so long ago to that person given responsibility overall at a

provincial level for public health, and saying, "I don't want to hear. I'm not interested. All I'm interested in is how do we cut budgets, how do we save money, how can we turn the delivery of

environmental services over to the private sector so that we can enhance the coffers of our friends and benefactors, and damn the cost?" We know now what that cost ultimately was and could be and

can be.

In this instance, all we're saying, all this member is saying -- and I commend her for that -- is when there's a permit brought forward that suggests that

water be taken, that those people who have a responsibility talk to each other, get in touch with each other and consider in a serious and fulsome way the impact that will have on the overall

environment, because if we don't do that, it is to our communal peril, I suggest.

So I'm committing our caucus this morning to supporting this very important, very helpful and very intelligent bill that has been tabled here for us to

consider.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): It's a pleasure to make a few comments on Bill Pr79, the private bill of the member for

Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington,

an act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act. We've heard a lot of comments this morning about water removal, monitoring, et cetera, and I would like to

just make a quick comment on the comments of the member from Sault Ste Marie. It's always amazing to hear him comment and listen to his hatred for the private sector in this province.

I come from an area of the province where we are very, very concerned about our water supplies. Most of my riding borders on Georgian Bay, and we're very

concerned about the levels. I was so pleased just recently, on June 18, when the Premier signed the agreement with the Great Lakes states, the Annex 2001.

"The objective of the Great Lakes provinces and states is to protect, conserve, restore and improve the water resources of the Great Lakes basin for today and

for future generations."

On June 18, when the Annex was signed, "Mike Harris, Ontario's Premier, has helped establish the foundation for a strong new standard -- upon which the Great

Lakes governors and premiers will base future water-use decisions.

"The critical change in the decision-making process will be the move from a good faith agreement to a binding agreement."

Hopefully in the future we will look at the Great Lakes basin and be very pleased with the water levels we see. We'll be "preventing or minimizing basin water

loss through water conservation measures and return flow."

"For the first time, a formal avenue for public input will be created" through this agreement, "and a new and regular series of progress reports will be

produced."

I appreciate the fact that the Premier has gone to this trouble and put this much effort in. As one of the leading parliamentarians around the Great Lakes, I

was pleased to see that he has shown the leadership.

As well, "for the first time, the Great Lakes states have committed to notify and consult with the Premiers of Ontario and Quebec on all proposals subject to

the US Water Resources Development Act, ... particularly given the fact that the provinces are not bound by the authority of the WRDA" of the United States.

Every man, woman and child in this province has a strong commitment to a great environment, clean water, fresh air. I mentioned the Great Lakes systems. I'm

also concerned about water removal for drilling permits. I have an area in my riding called the Oro moraine, a very sensitive area, and most of the residents are concerned about the amount of water

that's being removed, particularly for things like new subdivisions, golf courses and development. There is a lot of strain and pressure on this particular area of my riding, as there is in

different moraines across this province.

I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words commenting on Bill 79 this morning. I thank the other members of my caucus for their comments as well and look

forward to what happens during the vote here this afternoon.

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): I want to respond to some of the comments made by the government, particularly with respect to the hearing that

is going on, the appeal that is going on right now. This government is using a common tactic: it uses the courts, the judiciary, a hearing or a judicial inquiry as a shield. It says, "We're not

going to take responsibility for this; we're not going to talk to this issue in this House. Why? Well, we've got a hearing over here." And they hide behind that hearing. They hide behind the

shield. They hide behind the civil litigation going on right now in Ipperwash. They hide behind the Walkerton inquiry and won't answer questions in this House.

Now they're hiding behind this issue and they won't remedy a failure that is a failure borne by this government. We have heard in this hearing that ministry

officials have said that the Environmental Bill of Rights is toothless; that the statement of values is worthless because it's not binding in law. That's a failure of this government. Rights

without remedies are worthless. Where this government failed to fulfill its responsibilities, it's a dereliction of its duties. I can't believe that this government, in this week when the entire

province of Ontario is watching what you do, is going to yet again turn its back on public health and the environment of this province.

There is no law binding the government to consider the statement of environmental values. So say the ministry officials before this hearing. That's an

admission of failure. We have an opportunity to correct that failure in this House. Thanks to Ms Dumbrowsky, a private member's bill has been brought forward, and we can do that. In the constant

dialogue between the courts and the Legislature, we will let the courts know that we want the statement of values to be considered when it is decided whether or not a permit is going to be

passed.

So this is a test for this government. Are you going to continue to turn your back on the people of Ontario and public health in Ontario and the environment of

Ontario, or are you going to support this bill for the sake --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Response?

Mrs Dombrowsky: I would like to thank all of the members who have taken time to come to the House this morning to make some comments about

what certainly I, and many people within my riding and many people across the province of Ontario, see to be a very important piece of legislation that would go a long way to ensure the protection

of their water sources within their community.

I am very sorry when I hear members of the government suggest that there are some political motives that have given birth to this piece of legislation. I have

brought this forward because I've listened to the people in my riding, who I thought had some very valid issues about their precious water resources.

I'm also very surprised when I would understand from members of the government that they had difficulty supporting what is within this piece of legislation,

given that in their own business plan of this year it very clearly indicates that one of its key commitments for the year is, "To build a better, stronger, clearer environmental agenda in keeping

with our statement of environment values." It is part of their business plan.

Maybe they're confused. Maybe they've been reading another business plan. We've been given to understand recently that there can be any number over there, so

perhaps that is why there's some confusion. But I would suggest, when this is presented in a public document to the people of Ontario, that you have an obligation to be consistent with what you

present to the people.

So it is my sincerest hope that you consider the legislation. Don't consider the member presenting it, the side of the House from which it comes, but consider

the intent and the positive impact it will have on the communities, the people and the water sources in Ontario.

ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

AND TRADES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now deal with ballot item 17. Mrs Mushinski has moved private member's notice of motion

number 9.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES

AMENDMENT ACT

(WATER SOURCE PROTECTION), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RESSOURCES EN EAU

DE L'ONTARIO

(PROTECTION DES SOURCES

D'ALIMENTATION EN EAU)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Now we will deal with ballot item number 18. Mrs Dombrowsky has moved second reading of Bill 79. Is

it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will stand and remain standing until their name is called.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Cleary, John C.

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gravelle, Michael

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Ruprecht, Tony

Smitherman, George

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please stand and remain standing until their name is called.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Klees, Frank

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Spina, Joseph

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Wood, Bob

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 31; the nays are 34.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been complete, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1208 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GOLF TOURNAMENTS

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): It has been reported that a government agency has approved another $100,000 of taxpayers' money for a shell company

led by Mike Harris's best friend, Peter Minogue, and it's for another golf tournament. The Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp has made an additional $25,000 contribution to the same tournament. The

new confirmed gift brings the total value of grants since 1999 for golf tournaments organized and run by Mike Harris's golf buddies to an astounding $397,000.

The shell, a not-for-profit company known as Golf Northern Ontario, was created because the company that actually runs the tournaments, Golf Strategies of

Canada Inc, owned by Jack and Paul Raino, could not qualify for funding under heritage fund rules. Heritage fund grants are supposed to be for not-for-profit companies. Golf Strategies is a private

for-profit company.

Can you imagine the real benefit of $397,000 to the taxpayers of Ontario if it were spent in an overcrowded emergency room, or it would pay for a doctor for a

year in an underserviced area, or it would pay for special education for 10 students who really need it, or it would pay for clean water in a small rural community? This is just another double

bogey by Mike Harris.

SCARBOROUGH SUPPORT SERVICES

FOR THE ELDERLY

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre: It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to take this opportunity to congratulate an

organization in my riding that has provided an invaluable service to the Scarborough community.

Scarborough Support Services for the Elderly has been providing assistance for the Scarborough community for 25 years. Scarborough Support Services is a

non-profit agency. Its mission statement is, "To initiate and implement programs and services to improve the quality of life for the elderly, disabled and/or chronically ill adults in their efforts

to remain independent in their own homes."

There are over 160 paid full-time and part-time employees and over 600 volunteers in various programs and services. Nearly 3,000 seniors and adults with

disabilities benefit from programs and services offered by them.

I want to give you a couple of examples of what they did in just one year: 93,104 meals were delivered by volunteers to the homes of 1,073 elderly and disabled

adults; 17,626 transportation trips were provided to over 433 seniors to medical, grocery shopping, seniors' programs and other essential appointments. This is a small example of what these amazing

people do. Congratulations to the staff and volunteers of Scarborough Support Services. You truly do make a difference.

SENIORS

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): As we get ready to leave the House today, I can't help but feel a sense of sadness for the seniors who are

nowadays facing sweltering weather. Our seniors having just come through a very cold and expensive winter, I feel our seniors are being let down by the Premier and by this government. They have

just received a new tax bill, with increases for our seniors as well. They are afraid for hospital care and hospitalization, and they are afraid for the care they are receiving in nursing homes and

other places as well.

I want to read from a letter I have received from one of my constituents: "I petition the Mike Harris government to resign from office before they can

dismantle any more of our fundamental health care rights (they are certainly preparing to create a two-tier hospital system -- one for me and one for the rich)."

How can you disagree with these sentiments when our seniors are feeling the pinch from their own Premier and from their own government thinking they are so

blessed to be living in Canada? They are saying, "How come we have our own Premier telling us that? Are we so grateful to the government for what they are giving us today?" Our seniors today are

saying, "Are we better off today than we were five years ago?" and I have to say no, they are absolutely not any better off today than five years ago.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Speaker, yesterday or today, everybody in this Legislature would have received a brown envelope from

me, including you. I hope people will take the opportunity to look inside this brown envelope and review over the summer the information in this that I provided about my Bill 77,

An Act to amend

the Vital Statistics Act and the Child and Family Services Act in respect of Adoption Disclosure.

As everybody here in this Legislature knows, and particularly those who have been around for a few terms, this or a similar bill to this has come before this

House on several occasions. In fact, my colleague Tony Martin introduced one that came for third reading when we were in government and came this close to passing. But one member, whose name I

won't mention, who didn't support it at that time -- I hope he has changed his mind, and I think he may have -- held it up.

I have made a couple of attempts to pass a bill. Alex Cullen, a former member, tried to pass a bill.

This bill is long overdue. I know that most of the members from all three parties do support adoption disclosure reform in this province. We are far behind

other jurisdictions in Canada, including Newfoundland and BC.

We must get these laws changed. Thousands and thousands of people are suffering unnecessary agony because we have outdated laws.

I ask everybody to read the information over the summer and get back to me if they have any questions.

CAMPBELLFORD WATERFRONT FESTIVAL

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise in the House today to announce the annual Campbellford Waterfront Festival that is scheduled to take

place on August 3, 4 and 5.

This year, along with the traditional cardboard boat races and the beach volleyball tournament, there will be dragon boat races, a belly-flop competition, dunk

tank, barbecues, 50-50 draws and lots more good family fun.

The weekend will begin on Friday night with live bands playing at the Captain's Ball. Saturday starts with a pancake breakfast, the parade of cardboard boats

and many activities in the park for all ages. The dramatic and hilarious cardboard boat races will be starting at 1 pm. Last year I attended this weekend and thoroughly enjoyed watching the

competitors as they struggled to keep afloat while attempting to complete the course.

There will also be barbecues on both sides of the canal this year, with a steak barbecue dinner to end this very exciting day of activities and a dance to the

Saloon D'awgs on the patio of the legion to finish the night off.

The fun continues on Sunday, when another pancake breakfast will take place and the brand new competition of dragon boats will start at 10 am. This competition

has 22 people in each boat working together to paddle to the finish line.

The sixth annual Campbellford Waterfront Festival is indeed a great event that you won't want to miss. I invite everyone to consider joining us for this

fun-filled, action-packed weekend.

INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION

Mr Joseph Cordiano (York South-Weston): On Tuesday, June 25, I introduced a private member's bill that would provide tax relief for families

being charged intercountry adoption fees. The bill would ensure fair and equitable treatment of all adoptions regardless of the child's place of birth.

Back in March 2000, the Minister of Community and Social Services levied a $925 head tax on international orphans. The only thing you can say about this head

tax is that it was unjustifiable and discriminatory.

I ask the members opposite to support my private member's bill, because we want to ensure we're not telling the rest of the world that Ontario is

discriminatory in imposing the $925 head tax. It is unjustifiable.

Other jurisdictions, Quebec included, offer tax credit relief to those families. I cannot for the life of me understand why this government wants to continue

to perpetrate this discriminatory practice by its head tax of $925 on those families. They already face enormous burdens to undergo these adoptions internationally, and it's completely

unjustifiable. I say again it is discriminatory. Do away with the head tax.

VOLUNTEERS

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I rise today to speak about one of the special activities that has taken place in this, the International Year

of Volunteers. Volunteer Canada has developed and published the Canadian Code for Volunteer Involvement. The code provides organizations with a philosophical framework for involving volunteers at

the governance, leadership and direct service levels. It also includes the organization standards checklist that will help agencies evaluate their volunteer programs.

Volunteers play a vital role in our society, and while this role is recognized widely, there has never been a clear statement of this importance. The code sets

forth the values of volunteerism formally and consists of three important elements: values for volunteer involvement, guiding principles for volunteer involvement and organization standards for

volunteer involvement.

Volunteer involvement is vital to a just, democratic society. Volunteer involvement strengthens communities. It mutually benefits both the volunteer and the

organization. Volunteering is based on relationships.

Congratulations to Volunteer Canada for their leadership role in developing the Canadian Code for Volunteer Involvement.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): There is an ugly rumour circulating around my community that the government is about to fire our community care

access centre board of directors. I would say to Mike Harris and to the Minister of Health that that is a big mistake. That is a move in the wrong direction. Today, I ask, I plead, I implore and,

if necessary, I beg you not to fire these people who are dedicated to the clients they serve.

Our board of directors has asked your government to conduct a value-for-money audit. They want you to know that they are efficient. They want you to know that

they are making wise use of our tax dollars.

Earlier this morning, Minister of Health, I faxed your office a letter asking you to attend a public hearing with me so that you can hear from the board of

directors, the stakeholders and the clients. My community wants you at this meeting. I'll arrange this meeting at your convenience -- next week, next month, any time before the House resumes in

September.

It is imperative before you act that you listen to what our board of directors has to say, what our stakeholders have to say and what our clients have to say,

because the community of the city of greater Sudbury wants you to make not a rash choice; they want you to make the right choice. Listen to my community.

HEALTH PROTECTION

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I would like to welcome Mr Bruce Miller of the Police Association of Ontario, who is in the members'

gallery today.

A number of years ago, while Mr Miller was with the London Police Service, he performed CPR on an individual who unfortunately did not survive. An autopsy was

performed and it was determined that the person had a very contagious disease, spinal meningitis. Since Mr Miller could have contracted this disease while performing CPR, he was informed and was

given the choice to begin treatments. If the individual had survived, Mr Miller would not have been privy to the same information, may not have taken the treatments and could have suffered from

meningitis himself.

All too often, police officers, firefighters, ambulance workers and correctional officers are bitten, stabbed by syringes and forced into situations to perform

life-saving CPR. We need measures put in place to allow emergency workers, good Samaritans and victims of crime to be given enough information on their exposure to infectious diseases so they can

make an informed decision on the treatments that are needed.

Along with Mr Miller, I would also like to welcome Henry Watson of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association; Jimmy Lee, president of the Toronto

Professional Fire Fighters' Association; and Doug Brown of the Ontario Provincial Police Association, who are in the members' gallery here today as well.

I look forward to working with them and other stakeholders over the next two months to draft a private member's bill that will be aimed at further protecting

emergency workers, victims and good Samaritans.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Seated in the Speaker's gallery today, I'm very pleased to welcome to our Legislature the Honourable Helen

Sham-Ho, member of the New South Wales Legislative Council in Australia. She is joined by her husband, Robert, who is a councillor. Please join me in welcoming our honoured guests.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): On Tuesday, June 26, 2001, the member for Windsor-St Clair raised a point of privilege concerning recent

considerations by the Board of Internal Economy of the spending estimates of the Office of the Provincial Auditor. The Minister of Labour, the member for Niagara Centre, the member for Thunder

Bay-Atikokan, the government House leader and the member for Don Valley East also made submissions.

The member refers to a letter written by the Provincial Auditor on the subject of the office's annual budget wherein the auditor states, and I quote, "[a]s a

servant of the Legislative Assembly and the public accounts committee, I consider the inadequate funding provided as interfering with my office's ability to fulfill its responsibilities under the

Audit Act in a timely manner and is counterproductive to good accountability."

The member for Windsor-St Clair alleged that this statement amounts to a clear indication that the "government of Ontario has perpetrated a contempt of this

Legislature by impeding and obstructing an officer of this House, the Provincial Auditor."

At the outset, let me describe the system as it exists for the review and approval of the Provincial Auditor's estimates. The Legislative Assembly Act, in

section 87, creates the Board of Internal Economy, which is a creature of this assembly and which has membership drawn from all three party caucuses in this House. It oversees and collectively

makes decisions about the management and the administration of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

This same Board of Internal Economy is statutorily authorized by subsection 29(2) of the Audit Act, the governing legislation of the Provincial Auditor, to

"review and may alter as it considers proper the estimates presented by the auditor, and the Chair of the board shall cause the estimates as altered by the board to be laid before the assembly and

the assembly shall refer the estimates laid before it to a committee of the assembly for review."

While the executive is represented on the Board of Internal Economy, at no point is the legal entity of the government of Ontario involved in this process. The

Office of the Assembly and its governance structure, the Board of Internal Economy, are statutorily and factually separate and independent from the government of Ontario. It is therefore, in

effect, practically impossible for the government of Ontario, having no involvement in this process, to somehow be seen to be a body that is obstructing this process.

I therefore do not find the government of Ontario, as alleged by the member for Windsor-St Clair, has, as he put it, perpetrated a contempt on this

Legislature.

As for the statements of the Provincial Auditor, he is to be commended for so strenuously protecting the interests of his office and for vigorously defending

and advocating for what he sees as the genuine requirements necessary to fulfill the functions for which he was appointed by this Legislature. The letter he provided on this issue, referred to by

the member for Windsor-St Clair, cannot be described as anything but forceful.

I will, however, express reservations about its more intemperate contents and will simply reiterate that the Board of Internal Economy has, and claims, the

right to determine the budget appropriation for the Office of the Provincial Auditor, subject to ultimate approval by this very assembly. The Board of Internal Economy is seized with serving the

public interest in this regard and with providing the Provincial Auditor -- and all the parliamentary officers -- with the tools that it determines he needs to perform his function. The board's

valid determination in this regard is final and while issue may be taken with its decision, the board has and asserts its right to make such decisions. Furthermore, with respect to the current case

regarding the Provincial Auditor's budget submission, that decision has not yet been made by the board.

Finally, I can only observe how circular and illogical the argument becomes that somehow this process I have described has resulted in a contempt having been

perpetrated on the assembly, since it is the assembly itself that has created, approved, participated in and followed this process. It is not a matter of privilege for the board to carry out its

responsibilities. The Legislature can hardly be in contempt of itself; the assembly is master of its affairs and to the extent described above, master of its parliamentary officers, which it

appoints. It is not the other way around.

I thank all of the members for their kind input.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would have appreciated a notation in your response that the majority

control of the Board of Internal Economy is composed of members of the government. That wasn't in your response. Second, it also has representatives, as defined in our Legislative Assembly Act, who

are also cabinet ministers. I think that should have been noted, sir, in your response. The final point I would like to add: I found out yesterday th