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

November 15, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Nov-15 vol. A (PDF)

L102A - Wed 15 Nov 2000 / Mer 15 nov 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

INJURED WORKERS

CARTWRIGHT HIGH SCHOOL

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

MIKE WEIR

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

TRENTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

WINTER HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

FEDERAL CORRECTIONS SYSTEM

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

KMFC HOLDINGS INC. ACT, 2000

VISITORS

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ORAL QUESTIONS

MEMBERS' COMPENSATION

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

MEMBERS' COMPENSATION

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LEGISLATION

EDUCATION LABOUR DISPUTE

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

SEX OFFENDERS

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

WASTE MANAGEMENT

MANDATORY DRUG TESTING

ONTARIO WHOLE FARM RELIEF

FLU AND PNEUMOCOCCAL IMMUNIZATION

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

EDUCATION LABOUR DISPUTE

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

PENSION INDEXATION

PROTECTION OF MINORS

PHOTO RADAR

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

DIABETES TREATMENT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

PROTECTION OF MINORS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TOUGHEST ENVIRONMENTAL PENALTIES ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SANCTIONNANT PAR LES PEINES LES PLUS SÉVÈRES DES INFRACTIONS DE NATURE ENVIRONNEMENTALE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

INJURED WORKERS

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): Two days ago, Ontario's injured workers demonstrated in front of the Ministry of Labour's offices. I wanted you to know that Dalton McGuinty Liberals stand with them as they request a fair deal from this government.

(1) Injured workers and their dependants should not have to rely on their pensions being topped off by welfare payments. McGuinty Liberals would overhaul the injured workers payments.

(2) Injured workers' benefits should be protected from inflation. McGuinty Liberals would introduce a fair inflation factor to protect workers' benefits from inflation.

(3) We would introduce a stringent program to improve the collection of unpaid and uncollected employers' premiums.

(4) We would reinstate the independence of the Occupational Disease Panel. The panel must be free to research and provide independent advice on the links between diseases and the workplace.

(5) Every injured worker must have the right to independent appeal. McGuinty Liberals would ensure that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal has the necessary autonomy to ensure fairness, thoroughness and independence for every appeal.

It simply isn't right that we as MPPs will be receiving 17% increases while those who are injured on the job in Ontario get only 0.2% increases.

CARTWRIGHT HIGH SCHOOL

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I've got very good news for the House today. Last Friday, I attended commencement ceremonies at Cartwright High School in Blackstock. This school continues a tradition of setting excellent standards and many good things happening in a rural community school-a small rural school, I might say. Each year, an exceptionally high number of students graduate and go on to pursue post-secondary education. I congratulate principal Karen Allen as well as music teacher Mr John Beirness and, in fact, the whole teaching community, and also the community involving local business and service clubs that provide bursaries and recognition.

My congratulations also go to Julie Obstfeld, who was the student council prime minister and also the student who achieved the highest OAC average. I would like to add that of the 17 OAC students, 12 were Ontario scholars. On behalf of everyone in the riding of Durham, I congratulate all the students of Cartwright High School and wish them the best of success for their futures.

Congratulations must also go to another group of students in the Cartwright area. Recently, Jessica McLaughlin and Joel Gunther accepted an award for rural youth achievement on behalf of all the young people involved in the creation and running of the Cartwright youth activity centre volleyball league. This award was part of Ontario's second annual award of rural excellence through the Foundation for Rural Living. With no extracurricular activity sports offered to the school, these young people worked together to form their own volleyball league and successfully allowed children to participate. A $3,200 grant was granted by the Trillium Foundation to help with their expenses.

I commend the students as leaders and future leaders in the province of Ontario.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): It's almost a year since the McKendry report on the shortage of doctors was released and almost a year since the Minister of Health established the Peter George task force to advise on how to implement the McKendry recommendations. Every time this issue is raised now, the minister says she is waiting for the task force report. Well, so are we all, and the crisis in access to physician care is becoming more critical with every day that we wait.

In northwestern Ontario as of September, there was a shortage of 55 family doctors and 48 specialists. About 30,000 people in Thunder Bay have no family doctor. One of these 30,000 is Terry Loyst, who has multiple sclerosis and desperately needs a physician who can prescribe medication to relieve his pain. Another is an asthmatic patient who has lived in Thunder Bay for three years and still has no family doctor.

The shortage of specialists creates another kind of crisis. The waiting time to see an ophthalmologist in Thunder Bay is two and a half years, yet ophthalmology isn't even one of the areas identified by Dr McKendry as facing a critical shortage across the province. We know that across the province there is a shortage of cancer specialists. We know there is an even greater shortage of obstetricians, orthopaedic surgeons, general surgeons, anaesthetists, psychiatrists and pathologists. We know that 107 communities are now underserviced for family physicians, that 25% of Ontarians do not have a family doctor. We know that the two obstetricians in Owen Sound are no longer accepting new patients.

We can't wait much longer for the government to act. We need more medical school spaces, more residency spots, more opportunities for foreign-trained doctors to obtain Ontario licences, and we need decentralized medical school training.

We look to the task force report to recommend all these initiatives, and for the Harris government to act on them immediately.

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I'd like to tell my colleagues about the actions being taken in Perth county to assist troubled youth in conflict with the community.

Yesterday in Stratford, the PACT advisory committee hosted the first annual restorative justice event, as part of National Restorative Justice Week. PACT stands for Perth Alternatives and Choices for Troubled Teens.

Restorative justice is about restoring relationships and about healing rifts. It encourages offenders to be aware of their actions and their impact on the community. It also gives victims, offenders and the community a voice in the justice system.

Madam Justice Catherine McKerlie was the keynote speaker. She spoke about the important role that restorative justice has in the justice system.

The PACT advisory committee established a diversion program, which is an early intervention program for young offenders, as well as a suspended learners program that focuses on creative responses to suspended students.

The restorative justice efforts in Perth county have also strengthened working relationships between police, social services, schools and the community, in an effort to address both the needs of the young people and the needs of the community.

I'd like to congratulate Kelly and John Mistruzzi, owners of Family and Company in Stratford, who received this year's Restorative Justice Award.

I'd also like to applaud the efforts of the PACT advisory committee for helping to build a safe and healthy community in Perth county.

MIKE WEIR

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): I'm pleased to rise in this House today to congratulate Mike Weir, a Sarnia native, on his successful season ending on the PGA golf tour. Mike Weir won the biggest golf tournament in his life on Sunday at Valderrama.

He comes from the suburb of Brights Grove in Sarnia, where I live, and his parents still live there. It's known that Sarnia-Lambton, by the way, has the largest number of golf courses per capita in all of Canada.

Mike Weir had a rough start when he had to requalify for the PGA tour, and then he won the qualifying tournament, which put him back on that tour. He won, of course, the Air Canada Open in Vancouver, and last week he won in Spain.

No other Canadian has won so much money on a tour; he has finished sixth in the season's winnings.

Mike Weir's home course is at Huron Oaks in Brights Grove, and he doesn't forget his roots. He holds a junior golf clinic during the week of the Bayer golf tournament at Huron Oaks every year. He also participates in the Sarnia Sunshine Foundation charity golf tournament on that same course every year.

Mike Weir is considered a local sports hero. He's raised the profile of golf for young Canadians, just as Tiger Woods has done for Americans.

Congratulations to Mike Weir and his family on his remarkable accomplishments in the world of golf. Mike Weir is Canada's greatest ambassador for golf, but always mentions his roots in Brights Grove, Sarnia.

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd just like to point out that Mike Weir's caddy is a young gentleman by the name of Brennan Little, who's a resident in my riding, in St Thomas.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Later I will be presenting a motion written in Braille as a symbol of one of the many barriers people living with disabilities face in Ontario today.

My statement endorses the only thing any Tory government member has done for people living with disabilities in this and other legislative sessions. It supports the bill put forward by MPP David Young to make June Deaf-Blind Awareness Month.

While the effort is honourable, the simple reality is that hundreds of thousands of people living with disabilities in Ontario are begging this government to keep their promise and bring in a strong and meaningful Ontarians with Disabilities Act. This government continues to refuse. You might be willing to dedicate an awareness month, but you refuse to bring in laws that would tear down barriers to the disabled in Ontario, barriers like the inability to have a simple statement read aloud in Braille in the Legislature, which is supposed to represent all Ontarians, not just those with sight.

Today, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee is holding an event in the Legislature to raise awareness for the growing call to tear down barriers in Ontario. The NDP disability critic, Tony Martin, is holding a similar event today in his home riding of Sault Ste Marie.

We ask the same thing of this government: will you please make good on your promise to bring in an ODA? Stop stalling and table it here in the Legislature today.

TRENTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise today to inform the members of this House about tomorrow's official opening of the newly renovated Memorial Hospital in Trenton. Tomorrow's opening marks the beginning of a more modern, efficient service for patients in the east Northumberland and Quinte regions. The new, 45,000-square-foot addition is state-of-the-art, bright, climate-controlled and barrier-free. It also houses ambulatory clinics, an emergency department, a patient care unit with 40 beds, a special care unit, patient registration and operating rooms.

This project took more than 10 years of planning, negotiations and community fundraising. It was promised, but never approved, by former governments.

The initiative is a success, thanks to the persistence, hard work and dedication of both Quinte Healthcare and the Health Services Restructuring Commission. With the support and commitment of this government, and the work of Quinte Healthcare, the people of Northumberland and Quinte west now have access to the most modern and most efficient hospital facility of any in the province.

Our government is indeed committed to building a province that meets the changing health needs of all Ontarians. The new Trenton Memorial Hospital is a perfect example of that commitment.

WINTER HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): While the calendar may say that winter officially begins on December 21, there is no question that the winter season is now upon us in northern Ontario. In fact, the government even acknowledges this as the Ministry of Transportation has for many years designated tomorrow, November 16, as the day when winter maintenance standards officially go into effect.

With all the changes over the past five years, particularly the massive move to privatization of this service by the government, I want to put the Ministry of Transportation and the private contractors on notice today that we are watching their performance very closely this year. While the ministry maintains their standards have not declined over the years, I and the driving public clearly disagree. But, as the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding.

But one thing is irrefutably clear: we are seeing many more highway closures the last few years than ever before-even in our mildest winters. I recognize that these closures are put in place to ensure the safety of the driving public, but my question is: could some of these closures have been safely avoided if maintenance work had been done in advance?

This past weekend, for example, the Trans-Canada Highway between Nipigon and Marathon was closed for a few hours because transport trucks could not make it up some of the steep hills on that

section of the highway. Had the road maintenance crews been sent out in advance ready to salt those sections, it's quite likely this closure could have been safely avoided. While it may save money to simply close a

section of highway so that contractors can do their job unimpeded by traffic, it is my belief that these road closures, if they can be safely avoided, should be. Drivers in the north who must frequently travel long distances deserve that consideration.

FEDERAL CORRECTIONS SYSTEM

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I too congratulate Mike Weir on his magnificent performance.

However, as a Canadian, it is very disappointing to watch on a weekly basis the embarrassment that our federal corrections system is to our country. Although the minister of corrections, Lawrence MacAulay, is ignorant enough to claim that we have "the best system in the world," it is very unfortunate that he does not consider the detention of convicted cop killers in minimum security facilities to be important to those of us who are concerned about the safety and security of Canadians.

Only five years ago, Clinton Suzack was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of Sudbury Police Constable Joe MacDonald. He now has been sent from Kingston Penitentiary to a medium-security facility in Mission, BC. Rose Cece and Mary Taylor, who murdered Toronto police Detective Bill Hancox, shared the same cell at Club Fed, a Joliette, Quebec, facility until Ontario Minister Rob Sampson shamed federal corrections into separating them.

Gary Fitzgerald, who murdered OPP Constable Richard Verdecchia and left Orillia OPP Constable Neil Hurtubise on the road to die, escaped a BC minimum security facility named Ferndale. And last week, James Hutchison, convicted of executing two east coast police officers, simply walked away from the Kingston Humane Society while on an escort pass.

Over the last few months I've listened to the rhetoric, fear-mongering and scare tactics from members of the opposition as our minister of corrections has genuinely established guidelines to reform an outdated, ineffective and inefficient corrections system here in Ontario.

I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to show respect for the dedicated police officers of our province and demand that his federal cousins stop this act of allowing convicted police murderers on to the streets and into the neighbourhoods of our country. Show us, one time, that you have the courage to act on behalf of Ontarians.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I would like to ask all members to join me in welcoming our new group of pages.

We have Jared Baker from Durham; Geoffrey Baklarz from Guelph-Wellington; James Beange from Oak Ridges; Pascale Bouchard from Algoma-Manitoulin; Aaron Core from Lambton-Kent-Middlesex; Alexandra Davey from Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge; David Fagerdahl from Kenora-Rainy River; Timothy Love from Peterborough; Silvia Maida from Etobicoke Centre; Timothy March from Scarborough East; Victor Nifo from Etobicoke-Lakeshore; Jessica Paczuski from Parkdale-High Park; Jenna Scharman from Kitchener Centre; Katherine Scott from Brant; Andrew Spinner from Windsor West; Allison Stark from Hamilton West; Miranda Virtanen from Nickel Belt; Adam Warren from London North Centre; Rosemary Wilson from Chatham-Kent-Essex; and Heather Witlox from Parry Sound-Muskoka.

I'm sure all members join in welcoming our new group of pages.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the 14th report of the standing committee on government agencies. Pursuant to standing order 106(e), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

KMFC HOLDINGS INC. ACT, 2000

Mr Ouellette moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr28,

An Act to revive KMFC Holdings Inc.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Pursuant to standing order 84, this bill stands referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

VISITORS

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to bring to the attention of the House a very special visit from the Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk Catholic District School Board, students from all across the board, visiting to learn about democracy, organized by teacher Mr Terry Dunigan and principal Terry Slaght, I'd like to welcome them here in the House today.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Frank Klees (Minister without Portfolio): I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion regarding private members' public business.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Mr Klees: I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(g), notice for the ballot number 54, standing in the name of Alvin Curling, appear on the orders and notices paper by Monday, November 20, 2000.

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

Motions?

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have a motion.

The Speaker: There isn't a provision to introduce a motion by a member.

Ms Churley: May I have unanimous consent?

The Speaker: What you could do is say very briefly what the unanimous consent is so everybody knows.

Ms Churley: I'm asking for unanimous consent. It's a bit of an unusual request, but I have a motion with respect to establishing June as Deaf-Blindness Month in Braille in both official languages, and I would like to ask that the Clerk read this to the Legislature. I would ask-

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

Ms Churley: So you're not going to allow me-

The Speaker: I'm afraid I can't. The orders don't allow it, other than if there is unanimous consent, and I'm afraid I did not hear it. Unfortunately, I can't break the rules.

Ms Churley: May I ask for another unanimous consent?

The Speaker: Unanimous consent on another subject?

Ms Churley: May I present this as a motion and have this brought to the Clerk to table?

The Speaker: What you can do is just send it up to the clerks, if you'd like. That doesn't need a motion just to send it to the clerks, if you would be so kind.

Ms Churley: May I make a brief statement on what this motion is about?

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

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The opposition was informed that the Premier would be here for question period, and we wonder if that is still the case.

The Speaker: Yes. We did wrap up rather early. I knew if I stalled long he would come in. It is now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MEMBERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. It is quite clear that if there is one common thread of interest that has run throughout your political career, it has been your per sonal interest. In 1975, when you were a trustee at the Nipissing school board, you voted yourself a 166% pay hike. In 1997, you gave yourself nearly $1 million as a pension payout. During the past several days, you said you want a 42% pay hike. We've said no and the people of Ontario have said no. You've also said you want a 33% pay hike. We've said no and the people of Ontario have said no.

Now we understand you want a 17% pay hike. We say no and the people of Ontario are also saying no.

How can you justify your exorbitant demands for pay hikes and speak to your employer in this matter, the people of this province?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I apologize for my voice, but hopefully, with technology and the assistance of my friends, you'll all be able to hear me.

First of all, I would like to indicate that I have very publicly been on the record over the last 10 years in support of no pay increases at all. In addition to that, I have supported pay cuts of 10% over the last 10 years, so not only have MPPs not had a pay increase over the last 10 years, they've had pay cuts equivalent to 10%. I also supported a bill that scrapped the tax-free allowance, something that I wish the federal government would do. I also supported a bill that eliminated the gold-plated pension plan and replaced it with an RRSP. Those are the things I have supported and are well on the record.

In addition, I indicated that there would be no restoration of the 10% pay cut, as long as I was Premier, until the books were balanced. The books are balanced so I'm prepared to consider, if the parties wish that-

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

Mr McGuinty: I think that many Ontarians don't really know this: you took close to $1 million in 1997 as part of your pension payout-this from the guardian of the public purse.

I believe that we, the members of this Legislature, who enjoy the privilege of public service, are at the end of the day nothing more and nothing less than public servants. In that regard, we are like our teachers and our nurses and our firefighters and our police.

You have told them they're not entitled to anything more than somewhere between 2% and 3%. I think we deserve the same kind of treatment here in this Legislature, as a matter of fairness, as a matter of principle and understanding that we too are public servants. Premier, in all of the circumstances, given what our public servants have received, do you not agree that we should be getting something in the range of 2% to 3%?

Hon Mr Harris: Because the matter is one for all MPPs, I think this is a matter that should be decided by MPPs. I've been very clear on the record supporting no increase for a 10-year period, in fact pay cuts for a 10-year period and no chance of restoring that 10% until the books were balanced, which after the disgraceful record of you and the NDP we finally were able to achieve last June.

You're quite right: I took a pension payout equivalent to $49,000 a year. Had I not done that, I would be entitled now to a pension of $104,000 indexed for the rest of my life. As a result of that change to the RSP, my pension is now worth half what it would have been had I left the previous legislation in place. That is something I voted for, to scrap it. I thought it was the right thing to do. You voted for it. Your party voted for it. If you now have changed your mind, we'd be delighted to hear that.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, in 1995 you promised, "Never again will politicians' pay be settled behind closed doors or through backroom deals." Rather than send your House leader on wild goose chases and then later pull the rug out from under his feet, why don't you and I talk about this here, right now?

During the course of the next three years, I am proposing that we each receive-it's interesting how the House quietens on this matter-a 2% pay hike. That's 6% over the course of the next three years, nothing more and nothing less, to take effect January 1, 2001. Let's pull this out from under the table and put it on top of the table. There's a proposal. I think it's fair, I think it's just and I think it's perfectly in keeping with what we've been awarding our public servants.

Hon Mr Harris: In addition to making the commitment in support of the 10% pay cut, I was also very clear that I didn't think we should set our own pay, so I also supported a process to have the Speaker, when the books were balanced, have an independent commission. You supported that. The NDP supported that. You've now clearly changed your mind on that. That's fair. That's your right to do. Nobody is saying you don't have the right to flip-flop and change your mind.

Now you're asking me to have the MPPs set the pay. On that basis, you're 6% too high.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock please. Order.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): The question is to the Premier, but just so we are clear, I said 6% over three years. The Premier believes that 42% is still acceptable, 33% is still acceptable and so, somehow, is 17%.

My question has to do with the absence of an Ontarians with Disabilities Act, yet to appear-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock please; sorry to interrupt. Order. On to the next question. Sorry for the interruption, leader of the official opposition. You can start again. We'll have the full minute.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, we in the Liberal Party believe that our family members-our brothers and our sisters, our sons and our daughters, our mothers and our fathers-who have disabilities have every entitlement to achieve their full potential here in our province. We believe they deserve every right of access to opportunity, and that's why we have supported from the outset a real and a strong Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

Premier, you made that kind of promise five and a half years ago. Over two elections ago you made that promise, and you have yet to introduce in this Legislature a real Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Premier, why do you continue to fail Ontarians with disabilities?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): You're quite right; we have committed to bring in an Ontarians with Disabilities Act. I think the minister has made the commitment in any one of a number of meetings from July 27 to September 28, on November 23, September 8, in meetings with Mr Lepofsky of Ontarians with disabilities, and indicated that we would be consulting. She has been, as you know, consulting not only on

an act but on a whole plan, not just legislation, for persons with disabilities and has made a commitment I think for 2001 that we would have legislation in place and hopefully, with your support, enacted.

We are in that consultation process and on

schedule to meet those commitments.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you have been dragging your feet for five and a half years on this very important issue, and when it comes to gaining some real insight as to what your true intentions are, I talked about that. The most important date you left out here was the date on your secret cabinet document: August 29, 2000. It's marked "Confidential," and I talked about it before in this Legislature. It says in this, and this is absolutely breathtaking, that you are firmly committed to use "existing mandatory requirements and enforcement." You're not talking about a new law with new teeth; you're talking about going ahead with the existing law, which is grossly inadequate.

You also say in this secret document that you are going to commit to strengthen penalties for unlawful use of disabled parking permits and spaces. I can tell you that kindled a great deal of warmth in the disabled community right across this province.

Premier, will you admit it now? Five and a half years ago you never had any real intention of helping out our disabled community, and to this very day you still have no intention whatsoever of coming to the assistance of our disabled community in making sure they find opportunity here in Ontario.

Hon Mr Harris: Au contraire. In fact we did introduce an Ontarians with Disabilities Act in the last session. It was the first of its kind in Canada. You wouldn't introduce the act; the NDP wouldn't introduce the act. I know you say it wasn't as strong as you'd like it, but it was more than you had done and more than the NDP had done.

In addition to that, a number had said we should go back to the drawing board and consult, which we have agreed to do, and we are on

schedule with that process. In addition to that, in spite of the fact that we inherited an $11-billion deficit, since 1995 we have introduced some $800 million in new spending to the benefit of the disabled community. I can give you a few: $60 million in community living opportunities; in 1997 we announced $15 million more in additional funds to support adults and children with developmental disabilities in the community; another $3 million in 1998; in 1999, another $35 million more in support services to help persons with developmental disabilities live in the community; in 1999 another $2 million partnership-

The Speaker: Order. The Premier's time is up. Final supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, the jig is up. You have been found out. You have done nothing of substance during the last five and a half years. You're in your sixth year of government. Back in May 1995 you said you were going to introduce a real Ontarians with Disabilities Act, something that was going to be strong, something that had real teeth, something that would require that we have some real movement in Ontario to make sure that Ontarians with disabilities get a seat at the table of opportunity, and during the course of the past five and a half years you, Premier, have done nothing.

The question I have for you, on behalf of the one and a half million Ontarians with disabilities-and I'm talking about our brothers and our sisters, our sons and our daughters, our mothers and our fathers, all people who want to contribute, all people who have the right to achieve their potential-is, why do you continue to fail them?

Hon Mr Harris: I'm sorry the Liberal leader doesn't think $800 million is a substantial amount of money, but we, with the massive deficit we inherited, think it is. If I could perhaps continue with some of the list, in 1997 in the Ministry of Health, another $25 million over five years to match funds raised by the Ontario Neurotrauma Foundation; another $20 million in 1996; $23.5 million of new money in 1996; $8.4 million of new money in 1995.

So not only have we committed, unlike the Liberals when they were in power and unlike the NDP when they were in power, to bring in the first Ontarians with Disabilities Act in Canada-not only are we committed to that, not only are we consulting to do that-but even without the act, we have now announced over $800 million in brand new spending to the benefit of those with disabilities in Ontario. We're very proud of that record.

MEMBERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. You're quoted in the press today as saying you're prepared to push through an outrageous 42% increase in pay for MPPs. For you that would mean a salary of $200,000. It also means you're the Boss Hogg of all the Conservatives who want to feed at the public trough. Premier, at the same time that you've frozen the minimum wage for six years, that you've frozen the income of people who receive social assistance for five years, that you're saying to nurses and child care workers and teachers that they ought to accept 2% or less, how do you justify a 42% increase for yourself and the rest of your Conservative colleagues?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): (inaudible)

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary?

Mr Hampton: Well, Premier, you must be changing your tune, in which case I guess we want to know who speaks for your government: you, as Boss Hogg in this case, or Deputy Sterling?

Premier, yesterday Mr Sterling tried to justify these increases by saying that members of the public service have received a 100% pay increase. But we did some checking, and if we go back to 1980, the 20 years he refers to, MPPs were being paid $24,500 taxable plus an $8,000 tax-free allowance. Under your government, MPPs are now paid $78,000. That's already an increase greater than 100%, so even your attempt to justify it that way doesn't work. The question is, how do you justify this proposed outrageous increase when you're limiting everyone else in the province who has a much lower income? How do you justify that?

Hon Mr Harris: I think the leader of the New Democratic Party is aware that what I have supported since I've been the leader of my party is no pay increases for 10 years, because with the books not balanced I thought that was reasonable. In addition I supported 10% pay cuts, because again I felt we were asking others to cut back in those times to help us fix the mess you left us. I have also voted to do away with and scrap the pension plan, so it's an RRSP, as you've already heard. For me personally that meant a cut in my pension of more than 100%.

In addition, I think you are aware that we did away with the tax-free allowance, something I would encourage all politicians to do. In addition I supported legislation, as you did, that would say we ought not to set our own salaries.

The Speaker: Order. The Premier's time is up.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Final supplementary?

Mr Hampton: Premier, last spring you were proposing a 32% increase; last week you were drafting legislation for a 42% increase. You can talk about pensions. I think everyone knows you took a $1-million lump sum out of the pension fund that you can now invest at 10%, 15% or 20%, whatever you want. So you haven't made any sacrifices, and don't try to confuse people.

The real issue is this: don't you think that if you're going to limit the teachers, the child care workers, the nurses and the hospital workers to 2% or less, don't you think if you're going to freeze the minimum wage, that MPPs ought to be held to the same rules: 2% or less? Don't you think that's the only fair way to go about this?

Hon Mr Harris: I don't know what all the babbling and what the member is talking about have to do with reality. The reality is, I've shared with you my record since becoming leader of this party, and it's been a wage freeze and in fact a 10% pay cut, honouring the commitments that we made in the Common Sense Revolution to do away with those hidden perks that were there.

I do know your record. Your record was to phone me after the election and beg for a 40% salary increase by making you leader of a party that you were no longer entitled to. Your record was that your House leader should get a 25% pay increase by being a House leader of a party that wasn't recognized. Your record is that your whip should get about a 25% increase. Your record was that your caucus chair should get this 25% increase. Your record is that the Deputy Chair of the committee of the whole should get this 25%-

The Speaker: Order. The Premier's time is up.

New question.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LEGISLATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My next question is for the Premier also. I would say to the Premier, you're sounding pretty desperate these days.

Premier, I want to know why you are handcuffing judges and preventing them from seizing firearms from abusers. In the much-boasted-about legislation you've presented, which you call

An Act to better protect victims of domestic violence, a convicted abuser could have a veritable arsenal of firearms, but unless he has specifically threatened to use one of those guns to kill the woman victim, under your legislation the judge can't order the firearm seized when the judge is issuing a restraining order. This is just another example of your usual approach to protecting the victims of domestic violence: lots of talk and no action.

Will you guarantee here today that you will change your legislation to give judges the discretion they need to do everything they can to protect women who are the victims of domestic violence? Will you amend the legislation to give them the discretion to seize firearms in those circumstances?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Attorney General can respond.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): In response to the member opposite, the Domestic Violence Protection Act, which is in committee now going through clause-by-clause, as the member probably knows, brings forward the recommendations and is based on the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Domestic Violence and on the coroner's jury report arising out of the May-Iles inquest.

Those inquest results and the report both made far-reaching recommendations with respect to the content that legislation ought to have in addressing domestic violence, and indeed this bill, I think it's fair to say, has been reflected on positively by those persons who performed those studies, particularly the Joint Committee on Domestic Violence.

Mr Hampton: I can't believe what the Attorney General just said. You must know that under the provisions of the Criminal Code, where someone is being tried and convicted of assault, the judges have the discretion to order that firearms be surrendered. You said when you introduced this act that it was going to in fact go further and make improvements in terms of protecting women who have been the victims of domestic violence, but in fact what you're doing here is you're going to take away the kind of discretion that judges ought to have.

You're going to say that judges don't have the discretion to order the surrender of those firearms. This isn't going to protect women; this means you're going to put women back in the situation where someone who has already abused them has easy access to a firearm.

You should know that of the 43 women who have been killed since the May-Iles inquest, over half of them were killed with a firearm. Are you going to do the right thing? Are you going to give the judges the discretion they need here to protect women, or are you on the side of the gun lobby again, Minister?

Hon Mr Flaherty: I'm on the side of people who actually read bills that are before the House. The provision with respect to intervention orders in subsection 3(2), paragraph 7, provides that the judge may make an order requiring a peace officer to seize "any weapons where the weapons have been used or have been threatened to be used to commit domestic violence."

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Member for Beaches-East York, come to order please. New question?

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): Attorney General, I also am in favour of reading the bill. The Liberal amendment was tabled on November 9. It's very straightforward. It goes further than the provision that you just described. The problem with the provision you just described is we have to hope that the abuser is a bad shot before the judge has the discretion to intervene.

The Liberal amendment introduced on November 9, debated-and your parliamentary assessment said that he did not support it yesterday-simply gives discretion to the judges to intervene and seize those weapons without all the caveats that you've just added. It's not too late, though. It hasn't gone to a vote. A very straightforward question: yes or no, will you support the Liberal amendment currently before the justice committee that will give judges the full discretion that is needed to protect victims of domestic violence?

Hon Mr Flaherty: The bill itself, as the member knows, deals with domestic violence, a very specific subject matter. The bill itself, as I mentioned, permits the judge making the intervention order to require a peace officer to seize any weapons where the weapons have been used or have been threatened to be used to commit domestic violence.

Not only that, the bill goes beyond that and authorizes the judge to authorize a police officer not only to seize the weapons, but to seize any documents that authorize the respondent to own, possess or control a weapon described in the previous subparagraph. So this bill not only authorizes the judge to order that weapons be seized, but-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The Attorney General, take a seat. Order. I'm not going to allow people to be shouted down in here when they are trying to answer a question. If it gets to that, then I'm going to name you and throw you out, simple as that. Sorry, Attorney General, I think you had about 10 seconds left.

Hon Mr Flaherty: As I was saying, the bill goes further than the member describes. Not only may the judge order that the police officer may seize the weapons that have been used or even threatened to be used in a situation involving domestic violence, but also the police officer would be authorized, if the judge saw fit to do so, to seize the documents that permit the individual to possess those-

The Speaker: The Attorney General's time is up.

Mr Bryant: This is an absurd position to take. You have the opportunity, and I would urge you to take it, to in fact give judges the full tools they need. You should have heard the parliamentary assistant's argument. He said that it went too far. Do you know what he said? He said that this would be a problem-the Liberal amendment-in rural areas. Let me tell you that domestic violence is just as culpable and just as wrong in rural areas as it is in urban areas.

I'll tell you something else he said. The parliamentary assistant said, "How far will you go?" Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals are going to go as far as we possibly can. We will go to the wall for victims of domestic violence.

Minister, yet again, the people of Ontario, Ontario Liberals, are on the side of victims of domestic violence. Tell us why, yet again, is your government on the side of the gun lobby?

Hon Mr Flaherty: As I said earlier, the bill is a domestic violence bill. It is based on the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Domestic Violence. It is a targeted bill. It is specifically addressed to the public security issue, the issue that the province of Ontario has in the security of families and of persons who are subject to domestic violence.

For that reason, the bill specifically authorizes a judge to authorize a police officer to seize weapons that have been used or threatened to be used in those circumstances of domestic violence. And more than that, it goes on and provides that the judge may authorize the police officer to seize documents. These are the specific issues that are addressed in the bill, which in turn is addressed to the specific issue of domestic violence.

EDUCATION LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Brad Clark (Stoney Creek): My question is for the Minister of Education. It concerns the ongoing lockout of the teachers in the Hamilton district school board. We learned yesterday from the member for Hamilton East that the Liberal Party is on the side of the teachers' union, and that this government is on the side of parents and kids. The Liberals have accused this government of not providing enough funding to the Hamilton district school board, saying that this has resulted in the salary dispute between the board and the teachers' union that is keeping our kids out of school.

However, in today's Hamilton Spectator, teachers' union president Kelly Hayes is quoted as stating that the board actually does have enough money to fund a salary increase for teachers without the loss of teaching positions. Minister, who's got it right, the Liberals or the president of the teachers' union?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): This government, very much like the parents, wants to see students back in the classroom getting the education they deserve. We've provided school boards across Ontario with funds to ensure they can reach responsible agreements. There are some 60 boards' bargaining units that have either agreements or tentative agreements. They are indeed resolving these issues. They've reached agreements with their teachers and are continuing to negotiate with their unions.

The Hamilton-Wentworth school board, I think it is important to note as the honourable member has said, is projected to receive over $363 million more. That's an almost 6% increase over last year. It is also important to note that enrolment hasn't even grown by 1%. That increase is much beyond enrolment. They have monies available for a fair settlement, as other boards do. We encourage them to reach that.

Mr Clark: Over the weekend and all through this week now I've been fielding dozens of phone calls from parents throughout Hamilton-Wentworth. The message coming from the vast majority of parents is simple: "We want our kids back in school."

We learned yesterday from the member for Hamilton East that the Liberal Party is siding with the teachers' union in their negotiations with the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board. I find this political posturing totally unacceptable. I refuse to abdicate my responsibility to the parents who strongly support back-to-work legislation to get our kids back in school. Can you tell us if the government is prepared to introduce legislation if the parties cannot reach an agreement.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I certainly continue to hope, as we do in many of these areas, that the board and the union come to a locally negotiated solution, a fair and collective agreement for the teachers in this board, but we agree with the parents who are saying they want their children in school. I want these kids back in school. That's where they should be.

It is not acceptable that this labour dispute has gone on for as long as it has. If a solution is not reached between the parties, we are certainly prepared to move forward with back-to-work legislation to get our students back in class, because the parents have been very clear about what they want. We are looking at that issue to see what can be done to make sure those students are in class. They have, we believe, the financial resources for a fair collective agreement. We are not asking any more of this board and this union than boards and unions across the province-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Member from Hamilton East, come to order, please. It's annoying when you're shouting across when they're trying to answer. I don't mind one little bit, but you've just continued shouting for the whole question.

Minister of Education.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I look forward to meeting with the parents from this community. Mr Clark is making arrangements for that, and I look forward to hearing their concerns, as well, as we consider how we can help support this board and union in coming to a fair agreement.

Mr Clark: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: When you were stating that the member for Hamilton East was annoying, he stated, sir, that it's annoying when we're lying-

The Speaker: I didn't hear things. Quite frankly, with the chatter that's going on here it's impossible-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I didn't hear it. If any member has said anything like that, they can get up. I will say this: with the bickering that's going back and forth, it's impossible sometimes to even hear the person speaking, let alone the comments going on. New question.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to seek unanimous consent for the member from Stoney Creek and the member from Hamilton East to have five minutes to debate the $1,100-per-student cut-

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

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): My question today is to the Premier. About a month ago, my leader, Dalton McGuinty, revealed-

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): This is the last warning for the member for Hamilton East. Two seconds after I sit down, you're yelling across. Last warning. You yell out again, you're out for the day.

Mr Parsons: About a month ago, my leader, Dalton McGuinty, revealed to this Legislature a secret cabinet document detailing what your government proposed to do for an Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Though it's called an action plan, it's probably more appropriately called an inaction plan.

On October 25, you wrote to the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee and indicated you were very pleased with the strategy being employed by your government. I think "strategy" is a key word. It's not a plan, it's not beneficial; it's a strategy to sneak it into place. Then on November 1, you wrote and indicated how pleased you are with the minister's consultation that's taking place with the groups.

Premier, your minister refuses to hold any public consultations in this province for people with disabilities. Today in committee room 2, from 3 o'clock to 5 o'clock, there are over 75 Ontarians with disabilities here. I am inviting you to walk with me-take 10 minutes. I appreciate your voice is giving you a problem today. This would be a great opportunity to listen to Ontarians with disabilities. Ten minutes is all I ask. They've gone to great efforts to get here. Please join with me and listen to them today.

The Speaker: Premier?

Interjections.

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

The Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr Parsons: Speaker, was that a clear yes? I was unable to hear because of the shouting from the far side.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'm not going to get into interpreting, unfortunately. You can ask your supplementary. He may confirm it in the supplementary.

Mr Parsons: I do struggle with the lack of support to this point, so I think it's great that you're willing to come and listen. I'm also quite convinced that you have a tight timeline on when you will pass an Ontarians with Disabilities Act, so that it is more than just the 10 minutes today. I would ask you, Premier, what is the date that you plan to introduce a meaningful Ontarians with Disabilities Act?

Hon Mr Harris: I thank the member for his invitation, and I appreciate the offer. I think the minister, as you know, met with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee on September 8. She spoke with representatives on November 23, 1999. She met with them again on September 28, 1999. Minister Johns had a conversation with Mr Lepofsky on July 27, 1999, and the parliamentary assistant, on very short notice, offered to meet with the Ontarians with disabilities on their visit to the Legislature today, but I am told that meeting was refused by those representatives of whom you speak.

The timeline, as I understand it, is once the consultations are over and once we have reviewed all of the information-I would assume you wouldn't expect a bill today since a number of representatives are still meeting with you to try and give you advice-as they've given to the minister and when that exhaustive consultation process is complete, we'll meet the timeline that we committed to for 2001.

SEX OFFENDERS

Mr David Young (Willowdale): My question is for the Minister of Correctional Services. The federal Liberal government has been making accusations over the past short while to suggest that this province does not have adequate treatment programs available for sex offenders. The people of my community, the people of Toronto, the people of this province, want to be assured that when a sex offender is convicted, they get proper treatment to overcome their problems.

I ask the minister to assure this House that when someone is convicted of a sex offence, Ontario does in fact have treatment programs available for these offenders.

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister of Correctional Services): I want to assure the House and the people watching today that we in the province of Ontario do indeed have programs to deal with those who are sentenced to our institutions, and specifically those who have sex offences as part of their record.

Within our provincial institutions, we have experts who will make the initial assessment as to what the needs are of the individual inmates. Then we have the experts in various programs who will help administer the appropriate program to help those individuals within that correctional institution to deal with the challenges they have.

In a couple of locations in the province, we have institutions that are specifically designed to deal with sex offenders. In fact, we recognized the need to expand those programs last May, when we introduced a plan to not only continue those programs but to build additional capacity for those programs in Brockville, Ontario, in a special treatment complex which would be a unique complex and the only one I've seen in North America.

Mr Young: I thank the minister for his assurances. It certainly is good to hear that we do have those programs in place.

However, the suggestions emanating from Ottawa go one step further. The suggestion that I most recently heard is that there is insufficient room within the institutions that exist today and that are being planned for the future to accommodate the specialized needs of these individuals, individuals who have been convicted of very serious crimes.

Can you assure me, Minister, can you assure the people of Willowdale, can you assure the people of this province that there is in fact room within these facilities this day, and that room is being contemplated for a future day, so that these individuals receive the treatment that is necessary?

Hon Mr Sampson: Bed capacity has been a challenge in the province as a result of the lack of investment by the previous two governments in corrections. We have been struggling with that and making significant investments in corrections, spending almost a half-billion dollars.

But I can say to the honourable member today, as it relates to the programs specifically focusing on sex-related offenders, we have six beds available in the Ontario Correctional Institute today, seven in Guelph and two in Millbrook. That capacity exists today to deal with offenders who may be sentenced and for whom the assessment determines that those particular programs would be of value to them.

I hear the members opposite complaining about this, but we believe investing in corrections is the right thing to do. It's just too bad that you didn't have that foresight when you were in government.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Today my colleague Marilyn Churley presented a motion in Braille to symbolize the immediate need for an Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Our Braille motion symbolizes the many barriers that people living with disabilities face under your government. Even the simplest of services aren't available to them, yet you continue to deny them a strong and meaningful Ontarians with Disabilities Act. They can't get into movie theatres, they can't reach pay telephones, and they face barriers to employment, yet you continue to delay and to stall bringing in an Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

Premier, why do you continue to discriminate against Ontarians with disabilities?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): As I indicated, while we have been consulting with all parties, we have introduced some $800 million more in supports for those with disabilities than your government had.

I'm really quite surprised at you bringing this issue up. You were part of a government that had an MPP, Gary Malkowski-because Gary couldn't get you and your government to move, he introduced his own private member's bill, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. The record of you and your cabinet and your government was, you wouldn't even call it for second reading. It's a disgraceful record.

Mr Hampton: You're good at telling half the story. We brought in legislation which would have removed many of the barriers for disabled people in terms of employment, and that was one of the first pieces of legislation you threw out. So tell all the story, not just half of it.

Premier, we understand that your intention now is to make such

an act voluntary so that your corporate friends wouldn't have to comply, that they could comply if they wish. In other words, you would further sanction the kind of discrimination now that has happened for six years under your government.

Premier, there are hundreds of activists here today from the disabled community. They are asking and we are asking after almost six years, six years after you made the promise, when are you going to bring in an Ontarians with Disabilities Act that has some teeth in it, that has some strength in it, so that you will stop discriminating against disabled people in Ontario?

Hon Mr Harris: I think you would know it's illegal to discriminate against disabled people in Ontario, thanks to the Human Rights Code provisions. I think you quite understand that.

I had indicated to you that we are consulting, and to members of all three parties who have a great interest in this area, but we did not scrap your Ontarians with Disabilities Act because you refused to pass it. You refused to support your own member. You used your majority to bury this kind of legislation, which is why we committed that we would consult extensively and bring forward a bill.

We did scrap a number of your silly ideas: your labour legislation that killed jobs and put union members out of work, the kind of legislation that discriminated against, and was proven discriminatory on, quotas. We eliminated some of the legislation. That's how we turned this province around.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. In 1995, your leader made this promise to the people of Ontario.

He said, "Please be assured that no municipality will be forced against its will by a Harris government to accept another municipality's waste." On September 26 this year the Premier again stated, "We are in fact a party that insisted, when finding a solution to Toronto's garbage, that any site be a willing host." In a letter to the mayor of the town of Napanee, you have indicated that you are responsible for making the final decision about the proposal by Canadian Waste Services to expand a dump that's slated for closure.

You indicated that in making a final decision, you will consider whether or not the proponent has met the requirements of the environmental assessment. However, at no time have you indicated that your approval is contingent upon the town being a willing host.

Minister, please indicate yes or no: will you approve this landfill expansion if the community is not a willing host?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): Indeed, waste management is a growing global problem. In fact, we gave municipalities the freedom to determine their own long-term waste management strategies, and we support the town of Napanee as they determine their long-term waste management strategy in their community.

Let me be very clear today that our main role in this project is protecting the environment.

I understand that the proponent is looking for approvals for expansion of the Richmond landfill under the Environmental Assessment Act as well as under the Environmental Protection Act. Our government approved the proponent's proposed terms of reference after a thorough and technical review of their components. During the preparation of the terms of reference the town of Greater Napanee identified a number of concerns, including the need for and lack of consideration of other alternative sites and alternatives for landfilling, concerns regarding the existing landfill site as well as the potential for impacts to groundwater, wells, and surface water from the leachate.

Mrs Dombrowsky: Minister, you continue to be very unclear. I asked for a simple yes-or-no answer. If the municipality very clearly indicates that it is not a willing host for this landfill expansion, will you approve the expansion?

This is not only my concern. A letter I have received from Chief Maracle of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, because of their serious concern on this particular issue, has indicated, "Obviously Mr Newman's letter," to the town of Greater Napanee "is contrary to Premier Mike Harris's signed political statement. It is reasonable for the people of Ontario to expect that they could rely on the political statement of the head of the government." I agree with the chief that your statements on this issue are very unclear and in some cases contrary to what your Premier has said.

Very simply, I ask you again, yes or no, will you approve the Richmond landfill if the town of Napanee is not a willing host?

Hon Mr Newman: Let me be very clear: whatever decision is made, our main role is protecting the environment. That is the role and responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment, in addition to the need for consultation with the town prior to defining final study areas, assessment criteria and the environmental impact of the landfill expansion. But the proponent obviously has to address these issues through the preparation of the environmental assessment. I understand that the proponent is now proceeding to prepare the environmental assessment in accordance with the approved terms of reference.

MANDATORY DRUG TESTING

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I understand the Ontario Drug Awareness Partnership has announced that this is Drug Awareness Week 2000 and that over 150 drug awareness committees across the province have committed to making a difference in their communities.

Yesterday you made an announcement about mandatory drug treatment. I know that the Ontario human rights commissioner has written to you to express his concern with any such policy. This will be the first mandatory drug treatment program in Ontario, and I am confident it will be carefully scrutinized by this government's critics. I see in the National Post this morning that the Canadian Civil Liberties Association is considering a court challenge.

Minister, how are you going to try to ensure that your policy isn't too overreaching and that it doesn't get shot down in court on day one?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): This government is tremendously concerned about the plight of those in our community who are down on their luck, out of work and who, in a state of desperation and despair, have turned to illegal drugs. Our bottom line is that we want to help people get back on their feet and into a paid job. Some would say that we should simply do nothing, that we should sit back year after year and watch people use their welfare cheque to feed their drug habit instead of feeding their children.

The member is correct that the human rights commissioner has expressed some concerns with this policy, although he has not seen this particular plan, because we are consulting. I have certainly indicated to him in a phone call this week that we are not only enthusiastic but willing and eager to get his advice and the advice of his staff.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Baird: The Liberal Party opposite is complaining. The Liberal Party's policy on welfare reform was written by an insurance adjuster. You just want to write people off. Well, this party-

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

Mr Stewart: The concerns of the legal community are certainly one thing, but your critics say the larger concern is that you're beating up on the poor. It was described by one critic this morning in the press as a "urinary witch hunt." Clearly there is a balance needed between a firm hand and a fair hand. Any policy you draft must be able to achieve that balance. We are already hearing complaints across the country condemning your plans as mean-spirited.

Minister, how is it that you believe this policy is going to be fair to some of the most vulnerable people in the province?

Hon Mr Baird: I suppose it would be easy to follow the example of previous governments and to sit back and do nothing. I don't know what I would tell the caseworker who told me that she has seen one of the people she serves month after month, year after year, come into her office with track marks up and down her arm, and she is powerless to intervene and to force some help and support.

It would be easy for us, for this government, to declare a victory, to say the caseload's down by 50% and just simply move on. But this government isn't prepared to write anyone off.

There was a good editorial in the Welland Tribune, which said, "As far as we're concerned, there is absolutely nothing wrong with mandatory drug testing on those collecting social assistance. Those who have a drug problem and are unwilling to deal with that problem should not be receiving tax dollars with which to buy those drugs. Plain and simple."

ONTARIO WHOLE FARM RELIEF

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): My question is for the Premier. I want to draw your attention to the whole farm relief program and the serious inaccuracies within it. This is of great concern to Ontario farmers and it should be to you.

In yesterday's Ontario Farmer, your agriculture minister was quoted as saying that no information has changed since March 2000 and that it's available to everybody. Well, Premier, there have been plenty of changes, and not one of them has been communicated to the general farm community: changes in calculations from previous NISA years, reassessments for 1998, adjustments for 1999. These were never made available in the minister's information package. The 1999 guidelines does not appear until July 2000.

Premier, the farmers of Ontario need leadership. Will you today order the minister to reopen both the 1998 and the 1999 programs? Will you mail out complete information packages detailing the rules and all the options to all 60,000 farmers in this province so that everyone who's entitled to disaster assistance can receive it?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Minister of Agriculture can respond.

Hon Ernie Hardeman (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I want to say first of all that the whole farm relief program is indeed a very good program to help our farmers who have found themselves in dire straits not only in 1998 but in 1999.

I'm a little concerned with the member opposite, who is implying that being able to provide $135 million to our farmers in Ontario is misplaced money. I really have a problem with that.

There was a change made by the federal government in July that changed the way the inventory calculation for the federal portion of the program was to be administered, and that indeed was sent out to all the people who had an application before the ministry, and it was sent out to all the agents who were running the program on behalf of those farmers.

Mr Peters: Every farmer in this province, Mr Minister, deserves equal access to all programs. But let's look at another massive change that's taken place since March 2000: inventory enhancement information is not available until it appears on the Web site of June 2000. If you look at your own government Web site today, the information is wrong. A program information bulletin issued in July 2000, and guess what? There are only seven commodities listed for revised calculations. That excludes 70 other commodities on the federal list-no livestock, no tobacco, no ginseng, no fruits, no vegetables-and these come out four days before the deadline.

It's become painfully clear that this disaster program is a disaster in and of itself. This minister and this ministry have been continually warned since January 1999, and they have bungled this program and they continually blame others for their own ineptitude.

Minister, will you do the right thing: admit to this House that your ministry's management of this program is completely out of control? On behalf of the farmers, will you reopen the 1998-99 programs? Will you mail complete packages with all the rules, all the options, to all the farmers in this province?

Hon Mr Hardeman: The numbers and the things that the member opposite is referring to are in fact an updating of the StatsCan numbers between one period of time and another. As the member opposite will know, commodity prices change from time to time and there were in fact some commodity price changes in that time, and there were different numbers. That information was communicated to all the people who were involved with the farm program.

But to make sure that no farmers in Ontario are deprived of their entitlement, we will be looking at any application that goes beyond the time as it relates to that change, the change in the inventory price. If they've put forward an application that requires more payment for that, we will be very much prepared to look at those.

I think it's very important that we provide this assistance to our farmers as quickly and expeditiously as possible, because they are in need, so they're not waiting a year or two years down the road to get their payments.

FLU AND PNEUMOCOCCAL IMMUNIZATION

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): My question is directed to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care and it involves the flu outbreak. As you know, we put about $725 million into improving the emergency situations in our hospitals, but I have to tell you, Minister, you'll be very interested in this little account. I met on the Remembrance Day weekend with the Grit Minister of Health, and he was saying that it's our fault for the hospital lineups, even though he had taken advantage of our flu shot.

I'd like to ask you, Minister, what you think of his comment when he said the hospital lineups are our problem, not theirs, and what do you think of his taking advantage of our flu shot before high-risk professionals in the health care field got an opportunity to take one? He is not a health care provider.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): As the member from Etobicoke North knows full well, our government has made a very strong commitment to ensuring that our hospitals have strong, sustainable funding. We are now providing $8.2 billion to our hospitals.

I'm also very pleased to say that our province is the first and only jurisdiction in North America that is making available, free to everyone in the province, a flu shot this year. We have allocated $38 million. As you know, we started the vaccinations on October 1 for the high-risk groups and the health providers. On November 1, we started to make the flu shot available to the general population. I'm pleased to say I got my flu shot on Friday morning at 9 o'clock. Everyone here, I would encourage you to go to your doctor's office-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary.

Mr Hastings: It's very instructive that all you have to do is walk in the hallways of the Legislature here and you can see the pluses in terms of people getting their flu shot. But I have to ask you, Minister, what do you think about a Grit health minister taking advantage of this lineup? Since the feds want to be the great standard bearers of medicare in this country, why don't they help us financially with the flu program that we have in this province and help the other provinces as well? Again, they failed.

Hon Mrs Witmer: To the member from Etobicoke North, again I would simply stress we have enough flu vaccine for everyone in the province. Our initial order was for 7.9 million doses of vaccination. We had an opportunity to confirm the number we were looking for in July 2000, as did every other province and territory in Canada. I would just encourage everyone here to get the flu shot. I would encourage you to make sure your family and your friends do, because not only are you protecting yourself, but you're protecting older people who may be more vulnerable and people who have chronic care conditions. Since it's free this year, please, get your flu shot.

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is signed by a number of constituents who continue to be concerned at the lack of action on this crucial issue. I affix my signature in full agreement with their concerns.

EDUCATION LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas 40,000 elementary students are not in the classroom as a result of a lockout by the Hamilton-Wentworth school board; and

"Whereas the teachers are entitled to a fair collective agreement, and the trustees have a responsibility to ensure that the classrooms and the programs being provided meet the needs of our children; and

"Whereas the chair of the committee that is doing the negotiating said, in a letter addressed to the Minister of Education, Janet Ecker, `My frustration is because of the inability of the bargaining process to occur within the limits of a funding formula that is restrictive in allowing flexibility in the process, a funding formula that continues to ignore the professional aid that is needed outside the classroom'; and

"Whereas he goes on to say, `Your government's mandate appears to be one of the continuation of manufacturing a crisis in public education and the insulting abuse bestowed upon the dedicated deliverers of public education'; and

"Whereas parents want their kids back in school, teachers want the kids back in school and the board wants the kids back in school; and

"Whereas the problem is that there isn't enough money because the Harris government has cut funding to education; and

"Whereas the government caused this strike, and it has a responsibility to step in, resolve this situation and put our kids back in the classrooms;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: the Harris government has caused this strike by its relentless attacks on funding of public education, therefore the Harris government has an obligation to immediately restore adequate education funding to allow a fair collective agreement for teachers without cutting crucial supports and programs to students."

I proudly add my name to those of these petitioners.

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I've got to first recognize Mr Boyd from Bowmanville for doing all the work to gather these petitions. He was at a recent event-

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): If you'd like to read it, that's fine, if you want to tell about it, fine, but you can't do both.

Mr O'Toole: I apologize.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there are many Ontarians who have a passion for perfection in the restoration of vintage vehicles; and

"Whereas unlike many other jurisdictions, Ontario vintage auto enthusiasts are unable to register their vehicles using the original year of manufacture licence plates; and

"Whereas MPP John R. O'Toole and former MPP John Parker have worked together tirelessly to recognize the desire of vintage car collectors to register their vehicles using vintage plates; and

"Whereas the Honourable David Turnbull, our Minister of Transportation, has the power to change the existing regulation;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: to pass Bill 99 or to amend the Highway Traffic Act" to allow vintage auto enthusiasts to use year of manufacture plates.

I'm pleased, on behalf of my constituents and yours, Mr Deputy Speaker, to endorse this petition.

PENSION INDEXATION

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): This petition was given to me by many injured workers who are presently demonstrating in front of the Ministry of Labour's offices. It reads as follows:

"Whereas injured workers petitioned the Legislature of Ontario from 1974 to get full indexation of their benefits and pensions; and

"Whereas in 1985, all political parties in this Legislative Assembly of Ontario agreed to enact full annual indexation in the Workers' Compensation Act; and

"Whereas in 1998, Bill 99 restricted indexation of pensions and benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act; and

"Whereas the Canada pension plan is fully indexed annually;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to restore full indexation on an annual basis to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act of Ontario."

Since I am in full agreement with this petition, I'm delighted to sign it as well.

PROTECTION OF MINORS

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas children are exposed to sexually explicit material in variety stores and video rental outlets; and

"Whereas bylaws vary from city to city and have failed to protect minors from unwanted exposure to sexually explicit materials;

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

"To enact legislation which will:

"Create uniform standards in Ontario to prevent minors from being exposed to sexually explicit material in retail establishments;

"Make it illegal to sell, rent, or loan sexually explicit materials to minors."

I'm pleased to attach my signature to this petition.

PHOTO RADAR

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

"Whereas Mike Harris made the decision in 1995 to cancel the Ontario government's photo radar pilot project before it could be properly completed; and

"Whereas two Ontario coroners' juries in the last year, including the jury investigating traffic fatalities on Highway 401 between Windsor and London in September 1999, have called for the reintroduction of photo radar on that stretch of `Carnage Alley;' and

"Whereas studies show that the use of photo radar in many jurisdictions, including British Columbia, Alberta, Australia, many European countries and several American states, does have a marked impact on preventing speeding and improving road and highway safety, from a 16% decrease in fatalities in BC, to a 49% decrease in fatalities in Victoria, Australia; and

"Whereas photo radar is supported by the RCMP, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, several police departments, including many local Ontario Provincial Police constables, and many road safety groups;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that the Ministry of Transportation reinstate photo radar on dangerous stretches of provincial and municipal highways and streets as identified by police. The top priority should be `Carnage Alley,' the

section of the 401 between Windsor and London, and all revenues from photo radar should be directed to putting more police on our roads and highways to combat aggressive driving."

It's signed by a number of residents from Mitchell, Ontario, and I sign my signature to it.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have a petition forwarded to me by UAW local 251 in Wallaceburg. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the proposed changes to the Employment Standards Act would take us back to the late 1800s standards; and

"Whereas most jurisdictions in the world are reducing the level of overtime required; and

"Whereas these changes would allow companies to force overtime up to 60 hours per week; and

"Whereas the proposed changes will allow companies the right to average overtime over three weeks to escape paying the appropriate level of overtime pay;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, demand that the Ontario government implement the following improvements to the Employment Standards Act:

"Tough, proactive policing of standards.

"A living wage to ensure no one lives in poverty.

"Overtime pay after an eight-hour day, 40-hour week.

"Three weeks' vacation after five years of service.

"More paid holidays.

"Paid breaks. We need a guarantee of rest breaks in each half-shift;

"Above all, we're calling for the right of all non-union workers to vote to join a union."

I proudly add my name to these petitioners.

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Petitions keep coming in in support of this bill. This is Tom Luke from Newcastle.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there are many Ontarians who have a passion for perfection in the restoration of vintage vehicles; and

"Whereas unlike many other jurisdictions, Ontario vintage automobile enthusiasts are unable to register their vehicles using the original-year-of-manufacture licence plates; and

"Whereas Durham MPP John O'Toole and former MPP John Parker have worked together to recognize the desire of vintage car collectors to register their vehicles using vintage plates; and

"Whereas the Honourable David Turnbull, our Minister of Transportation, has the power to change the existing regulations;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: to pass Bill 99 or to amend the Highway Traffic Act" to allow vintage auto enthusiasts to use year of manufacturing plates for registration purposes.

I, along with all the other members here, am pleased to sign and support this petition.

DIABETES TREATMENT

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"We are suggesting that all diabetes supplies as prescribed by an endocrinologist or medical doctor be covered under the Ontario health insurance plan.

"Diabetes cost to Canadian taxpayers is substantial. It is the leading cause of hospitalization in Canada. Some people with diabetes simply cannot afford the ongoing expense of managing diabetes. They cut corners to save money. They rip test strips in half, cut down on the number of times they test their blood and even reuse lancets and needles. These budget-saving measures can often have disastrous health care consequences.

"People affected by diabetes need and deserve financial assistance to cope with the escalating cost of managing diabetes. We think it is in all Ontario's and the government's best interest to support people affected by diabetes with the supplies that each individual needs to obtain the best glucose control possible. As you all know, good control reduces or eliminates kidney failure, blindness, nerve damage, cardiac disease and even amputations. Just think of how many dollars can be saved by the Ministry of Health if people affected by diabetes had a chance to gain optimum glucose control."

I affix my signature to this petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): In addition to the thousands of petitions that I have already presented regarding cancer in the workplace, I have further petitions here today forwarded to me by Cathy Walker, the national health and safety director of the CAW Canada. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas this year 130,000 Canadians will contract cancer and there are at minimum 17 funerals every day for Canadian workers who died from cancer caused by workplace exposure to cancer-causing substances known as carcinogens; and

"Whereas the World Health Organization estimates that 80% of all cancers have environmental causes and the International Labour Organization estimates that one million workers globally have cancer because of exposure at work to carcinogens; and

"Whereas most cancers can be beaten if government had the political will to make industry replace toxic substances with non-toxic substances; and

"Whereas very few health organizations study the link between occupations and cancer, even though more study of this link is an important step to defeating this dreadful disease;

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

"That it become a legal requirement that occupational history be recorded on a standard form when a patient presents at a physician for diagnosis or treatment of cancer; and

"That the diagnosis and occupational history be forwarded to a central cancer registry for analysis as to the link between cancer and occupation."

My NDP colleagues and I continue to support these petitioners.

PROTECTION OF MINORS

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): It is my pleasure to present to you a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas children are exposed to sexually explicit material in variety stores and video rental outlets;

"Whereas bylaws vary from city to city and have failed to protect minors from unwanted exposure to sexually explicit materials;

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

"To enact legislation which will:

"Create uniform standards in Ontario to prevent minors from being exposed to sexually explicit material in retail establishments;

"Make it illegal to sell, rent, or loan sexually explicit materials to minors."

Since I agree with this, I'll sign my name to it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TOUGHEST ENVIRONMENTAL PENALTIES ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SANCTIONNANT PAR LES PEINES LES PLUS SÉVÈRES DES INFRACTIONS DE NATURE ENVIRONNEMENTALE

Mr Newman moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 124,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Pesticides Act in respect of penalties / Projet de loi 124, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection de l'environnement, la

Loi sur les ressources en eau de l'Ontario et la

Loi sur les pesticides en ce qui concerne des peines ayant trait à l'environnement.

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): I welcome this opportunity to take

part in third reading of the Toughest Environmental Penalties Act, 2000. I want to commend all members of the Legislative Assembly for their contributions to the debate so far. As most of you know, this is my first bill as a cabinet minister, and I couldn't be more proud of this bill because it is all about protecting the environment and making polluters pay.

I know that although we don't often agree on the means, we share common goals: a better-protected environment and healthier, more prosperous communities for all Ontarians. Everyone in this Legislature cares deeply about the environmental legacy we will leave our children and future generations. The Toughest Environmental Penalties Act, 2000, is an excellent piece of legislation that will help to ensure that the legacy is a proud one.

For the purposes of today's discussions, I'd like to discuss the Toughest Environmental Penalties Act, 2000, in the context of the Ontario government's overall record on the environment. Let me first say that it is a record I am proud to be part of. From our first days in office, the Mike Harris government has made it very clear that our focus on economic revitalization includes a recognition that a well-protected environment is one of the foundations of prosperity. After all, the environment is the ultimate infrastructure.

The converse is true as well. Prosperity is an important precondition for environmental improvement. We all know that there are many situations in the world where the economic situation is so difficult that little or no thought is given to protecting air, water and land. Here in Ontario we are fortunate because we have the resources to act. These resources include the environmental industry sector itself. It is a robust sector that is one of the key drivers of the provincial economy. We have companies that are competitive and efficient in large part because they are able to gain the advantages that come with environmental responsibility.

In fact, tomorrow is Environment Industry Day here at Queen's Park. The Canadian Environment Industry Association will be here to meet with MPPs and officials. I would encourage the members to come and find out all they can about this very valuable sector of our economy.

I hasten to add that one of our most valuable resources is a population that cares deeply about the environment and about meeting environmental responsibilities. The vast majority of individuals and corporations is dedicated to obeying environmental laws and doing their part to protect air, water and land in our province.

The Ontario government is committed to working with its partners to build on this concern. We are committed to the best possible protection of Ontario's air, water and land. We have backed up this commitment with a strong record of action. I'd like to focus on some of the actions we've taken this year alone.

For example, there's the drinking water protection regulation, which is the cornerstone of Operation Clean Water. This new regulation took effect in August and applies to all municipal and large water systems, which are the source of drinking water for most Ontarians.

The regulation has the following requirements: regular and frequent sampling and testing of drinking water; stringent treatment requirements for all drinking water in our province; quarterly reports for consumers so they are kept up to date about the long-term quality of their water supplies; microbiological and chemical testing by accredited laboratories; clear requirements for immediate, person-to-person communication of reports of potentially unsafe water situations, not only to the Ministry of the Environment but to the local medical officer of health, as well as the waterworks owner-no voicemail, no answering machines, no fax machines, but live person-to-person communication.

The regulation also requires full public access to water quality information.

Water quality standards, as well as testing and reporting requirements, now have the force of law. This is a first for our province. The standards go beyond the previous objectives and introduce more health-related parameters that must be met.

Another first for Ontario is the amount of information people will have about the state of their drinking water. These requirements are among the toughest in the world.

We're also looking at how to best ensure the quality of water coming from our small waterworks in the province. A discussion paper has been circulated, and we need to determine whether regulation is the best way to go and, if so, what type of regulation would be most appropriate.

Operation Clean Water also involves the inspection of all municipal water treatment plants in the province. These inspections will be carried out every year from now on, beginning with this year.

Last week I had the pleasure of introducing a draft regulation. It would make Ontario the first jurisdiction in the world to require monitoring and reporting of a full suite of key greenhouses gases. This draft regulation would require major industrial sectors in the province to track emissions of 358 airborne pollutants, beginning January 1, 2001. This is an expansion of the existing regulation, which requires Ontario's electricity sector to not only monitor but to report on emissions of 28 substances. A range of other industrial, commercial and municipal facilities in Ontario would begin tracking those 358 emissions on January 1, 2002. We're holding discussions on this draft regulation.

Another recent accomplishment of the Ministry of the Environment is the passing of the toughest hazardous waste regulation in Ontario's history. The strengthening of our rules will ensure that all hazardous wastes-and that means both those generated domestically and those imported from outside the province-continue to be managed in an environmentally sound manner in this province.

Those changes take effect March 31, 2001. They will create new opportunities for Ontario industries to deal effectively with hazardous waste and provide incentives for the generators of these wastes to put in place reduction initiatives that will decrease the amount being created.

We are also requiring the use of the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure to determine whether wastes are hazardous. In fact, it's more advanced than the current procedure being used in Ontario. It will make our requirements tougher than those of the United States because we will be testing for more contaminants. We will test for 88 contaminants, while the United States procedure tests for only 40 contaminants.

The new regulation also introduces a new "derived from" rule stating that any listed hazardous waste will continue to be classified as such until it can be demonstrated that it is no longer hazardous.

We're also updating our

schedule of hazardous wastes to include 129 new chemicals and industrial processes.

Clearly, the Ontario government is showing leadership in the management of hazardous wastes. As I said a moment ago, our new rules are the toughest in provincial history. They are consistent with the current rules set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. These new rules will ensure the safe and effective handling of hazardous waste in our province, and they will ensure a better-protected environment for all Ontarians.

It goes without saying that the best programs, policies and laws in the world will not be effective without the will to back them up with tough enforcement. I am proud to say today that the Mike Harris government has the will.

All members will recall my announcement in September of Ontario's environmental SWAT team. Its first phase will have 65 members, and this is a significant first step in this new and exciting program. They will include highly trained inspectors and new investigators, as well as environmental program analysts, environmental engineers, scientists and a laboratory technician. This team will be a new group of environmental officers with an innovative approach to identifying new and emerging problems, and it will have a greater ability to act quickly and effectively.

The focus of the SWAT team will be cracking down on companies or individuals who deliberately or repeatedly break the law and jeopardize our health and our environment. This team will be very mobile. The SWAT field units will be equipped with state-of-the-art communications technology to draw on broader resources without leaving the field. Ministry district staff will continue to conduct inspections and respond to pollution reports.

The SWAT team will be able to focus on targeted sources, sectors or areas of concern, and it will be able to conduct inspections and follow up on them.

We realize the vast majority of companies and individuals are very conscientious in meeting environmental requirements. They should be encouraged by the creation of the SWAT team because it will provide for a level playing field. Environmental offenders will no longer benefit from their actions at the expense of law-abiding companies and citizens. We intend to have parts of the environmental SWAT team operational in late fall. The team will help the Ministry of the Environment achieve its mandate by effectively and visibly deterring deliberate and repeat polluters. As I have said before, I like to refer to the SWAT team as the soil, water and air team.

We're backing up the SWAT team with the toughest penalties in Canada for major environmental polluters. These penalties are contained in the bill that we're debating here today, Bill 124. If passed, this bill would increase the maximum fine for a first conviction of a major offence for a corporation from $1 million to $6 million per day, and for a subsequent conviction from $2 million to $10 million per day. The bill would also increase the maximum fine for a first conviction of a major offence for an individual from the current $100,000 to $4 million per day, and for subsequent convictions from $200,000 to $6 million per day.

The bill goes even beyond that, because what this bill would do, if passed, is increase the maximum jail term for a person convicted of a major environmental offence from two years to five years. The bill would also increase the cap on administrative monetary penalties from $5,000 to $10,000 per day.

These proposed penalties would apply to offences under the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act, and the Pesticides Act. In addition, the penalty structure in the Ontario Water Resources Act would be amended to ensure that these new, tough penalties apply to the most serious offences under the new drinking water protection regulation. Those offences would be failure to report samples that exceed standards as well as failure to use minimum levels of treatment.

There are several key requirements for strong environmental protection: tough standards, effective pro grams, effective policies, high-quality monitoring, high-quality reporting. We need to ensure compliance and we need to be able to conduct investigations and prosecutions when compliance is not forthcoming. We also need tough penalties to serve as a credible deterrent. If passed, the Toughest Environmental Penalties Act, 2000, will be more than a credible deterrent; it would be the law of this province. These penalties that I've just outlined constitute the highest fines and the longest jail sentences in Canada for major environmental offences.

I want to conclude my remarks today by talking about the effect of the Toughest Environmental Penalties Act, 2000, on two groups: those who obey the law and those who do not. Those individuals and companies who obey the law are the vast majority in Ontario. Let there be no mistake about this: we need to ensure that these groups stay in the vast majority. We need to send them the message that we appreciate their efforts and that we will not let them down. We are levelling the playing field lest anyone think they can take advantage of the good environmental players.

It's a bit like the trend in the NHL today where the league is cracking down on clutching and grabbing and other ways that less talented players get ahead. Clearly, the most talented players in Ontario are the good environmental players, and we are ensuring that those players who don't play by the rules don't get ahead.

This brings me to the small, but not insignificant, group of individuals and companies who flout environmental laws for personal gain. These are the people-and we must remember that corporations are made up of people making decisions-who show callous disregard for the environment and for the health of other people. They believe their short-term gains outweigh any further losses for their community and for future generations.

The government has worked hard to stop these people. We need the Toughest Environmental Penalties Act, 2000, to make sure they know that pollution does not pay. We need to have the toughest fines and jail terms in Canada for major pollution offences, and that's exactly what the passing of Bill 124 would give us today.

We live in a province that is the envy of the world. We are prosperous, and that prosperity is built on a foundation of well-protected resources and clean, healthy communities. We must always be on guard to ensure that the actions of a few bad players do not compromise everything we have.

I know there are several people out there who support Bill 124, not only within the Legislative Assembly here but people across Ontario. The chair of the Canadian Environmental Industry Association, Skip Willis, says that "Bill 124 reinforces these market-based drivers by providing severe penalties for companies that fail to meet provincial standards. We are currently working with companies across Ontario to improve their environmental, and thereby their economic, performance. We applaud your ministry"-being the Ministry of the Environment-"for reinforcing these initiatives with clear penalties." That's what the chair of the Canadian Environmental Industry Association of Ontario has to say.

Finally, Speaker, if I may, through you, address my colleagues in the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, this is a good bill. In fact, it's a very good bill for protecting the environment. Strengthening environmental protection is something we all can agree upon and it's something I believe we can all support. I would like to thank the member from St Catharines, who knows firsthand how tough this job can be, and his colleagues for their support of this bill on second reading.

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

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'm pleased to be able to address some concerns I have about the bill and to indicate support for parts of the bill as well. First of all, I can't think of anybody in this Legislature who would be opposed to toughening the penalties out there in terms of dealing with violations of various environmental acts in this province. I indicated my support on second reading. I indicate my support on third reading, despite the fact that I have some concerns that I wish had been overcome through the acceptance by the government of amendments from the opposition to this bill to make it, I think, even a better bill than the government would contend it is at this time.

Our great concern, of course, is that you can pass any bill you want, you can have the toughest penalties in the universe-or perhaps I'll reduce that to say in the galaxy-but it doesn't matter if you have no intention to enforce those laws.

One of the first things that employees of the Ministry of the Environment were told when the new government got into power was, "You're to be business-friendly." Well, there are polluters who had to deal with the Ministry of the Environment employees before who were respectful and perhaps even fearful when they were in violation of the law who today walk around with smirks on their faces because they know that, first of all, there's not the staff in the Ministry of the Environment available to enforce the laws of the province, and second, they've been told to be business-friendly.

They translate that into meaning, of course, that they're not to bother business. You couldn't find it in the Common Sense Revolution document, but this fits in with what many in the Conservative caucus said to polluting companies when they were campaigning, and that is, "We're going to get the Ministry of the Environment out of your face." I can tell you that is a promise made, a promise kept. They got the Ministry of the Environment out of the faces of polluting companies in this province.

They set up a Red Tape Commission in this province, headed by Mr Wood and Mr Frank Sheehan from St Catharines. Frank could never be accused of being a raving environmentalist. In fact, reading some of his comments about the environment, one wonders whether he would agree with this piece of legislation. But the Red Tape Commission was there to weaken the laws of the province, to take away regulations which were there to protect the environment and the people of this province.

Even during the time when the regulations were being formulated, the former co-chair of the Red Tape Commission was encouraging the Ministry of the Environment not to proceed with prosecutions because they were going to change the law. Quite obviously what the government is all about is weakening regulations and weakening legislation in years gone by, so that we have a very difficult circumstance facing the Ministry of the Environment and the people of this province.

There were a couple of good articles that relate to this legislation. One is by Linda McCaffrey, who is at the law firm Lang Michener in Toronto. Linda McCaffrey was formerly a prosecutor with the Ministry of the Environment. I remember her exemplary work in years gone by, along with people like Dianne Saxe, who used to prosecute these cases. These people are not in the ministry any more.

Let me tell you what she said in an editorial in Municipal World in November this year: "In the short term, Walkerton means that Ontario's water treatment plants will get inspected. Where regulations and guidelines are not being adhered to, the Ministry of the Environment will issue field orders for compliance. It is possible that the ministry will get serious about developing regulations for effectively protecting groundwater resources. Some steps have been taken in relation to agribusiness, but it remains to be seen whether agribusiness will really be expected to comply with the new rules.

So far, the ministry appears oblivious to industrial and development threats to groundwater supplies." I certainly would concur in those comments.

She goes on say, "Although all water treatment plants are to be inspected before the end of the year, this initiative has only been made possible by diverting industrial inspection staff to water treatment plants. Unless new resources are committed, reassigned staff will return to other duties once all the plants have been inspected. It is difficult to see how the existing complement of environmental officers assigned to inspect water treatment plants can do more than they have done in the past: an inspection every three years and no effective follow-up.

"In 1998, the government amended the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act to impose administrative penalties for less serious environmental offences. The rationale for such penalties was that prosecutions are too expensive and time-consuming. The opposition lauded this legislative initiative, and the bill passed quickly."

Here's where the problem enters, and this shows that there's no follow-up by this government: "Predictably, everybody forgot all about it. The ministry hasn't developed the regulations necessary to implement the legislation. Prosecutions are still too expensive, and administrative penalties are not a prospect."

She talks about the SWAT team: "If investigators are hired, what tools will they have to work with? SWAT teams have to take samples and have them analyzed in order to determine what pollutants are being released into the environment and in what quantity. They need experts to advise them with respect to proper sampling procedures, handling and preservation. They need highly specialized scientists with highly specialized equipment to perform the analysis and report the results. At one time, the ministry had one of the best-equipped and -staffed laboratories in all of North America. Will current laboratory resources support a SWAT team?

"The investigations branch cannot initiate an investigation. They must wait until the abatement branch forwards an occurrence report requesting an investigation. Will the SWAT team have the freedom to look for pollution or even to respond to complaints? Once a contamination has been characterized, evidence has to be developed to persuade a court that there has been an adverse environmental consequence.

"The ministry's air resources and water resources branches were once staffed with experts qualified to develop and give opinions with respect to the potential impact of the release of contaminants in the environment. Where are they now? Who will the SWAT team look to for this expertise? Is there a budget to hire private sector experts for this purpose?

"Gord Miller, Ontario's Environmental Commissioner, made a speech at a reception at Lang Michener's offices in April. He said he sensed a groundswell of public unease with respect to environmental protection, and predicted that something would happen to focus this unease and force environmental protection back on the political agenda. Within weeks of this speech, people were ill and dying in Walkerton."

Then she goes on to talk about air quality problems: if there were problems that would arise with air quality, what would the result be? Another shell game, with water treatment plant inspectors reassigned temporarily to investigate air pollution?

"If the growing support for a flat tax of 17% continues to swell, the shell game will continue. Governments are supported by their tax base, and if the tax base continues to dwindle, government services must inevitably continue to contract." I'm going to say that again, particularly for those who might be tempted with the line the Alliance is giving right now.

"Governments are supported by their tax base, and if the tax base continues to dwindle, government services must inevitably continue to contract." The ultimate responsibility for the Walkerton tragedy and other environmental tragedies presently waiting in the wings lies with the people of Ontario. They must choose between good government and less government. Until the legitimate and essential role of government in providing public services and mitigating the risks inherent in the free play of the market forces is accepted, we shall continue to bear the ever-increasing risks of ever-shrinking government.

The point we're making here is this government does not have the staff and the will to enforce these laws. The law itself is a law that I can't see why anybody in the Legislature would not support, even though they removed one

section of it, which no longer allows for administrative penalties. Therefore, we know that company directors-they must have made representations to the government-will be off the hook. Company presidents will be off the hook for those administrative penalties. That was in the 1998 legislation that Mr Norm Sterling, the minister of the day, put before the House and never got acted upon because the regulations were never promulgated.

So we have a situation where the government of Ontario, under Mike Harris, has cut the staff of the Ministry of the Environment by one third; they fired one third of the staff out the door. It has cut the operating budget by 45% and done something similar to conservation authorities, only worse, and to the Ministry of Natural Resources. What does this mean? The government will go around and trumpet the changes in this legislation. They will talk about the toughest penalties in the galaxy or the universe, or at least in the Milky Way they will have the toughest penalties possible.

But you've got to have the resolve. You can't be playing footsie with the presidents of the polluting companies at the big Conservative fundraisers and then turn around and be prosecuting them. It doesn't happen that way. You can't be saying to your employees, "Be business-friendly," and expect that those employees are then going to do anything other than be cautious about proceeding with prosecutions with polluting companies in this province. You can't have it that way.

The SWAT team: I had the cabinet document that was leaked. Remember this one? The Premier said it was a phony-baloney document, and it turned out to be, of course, an accurate document. I want to tell my friend from Ottawa that what's in it is phony-baloney in some cases, but it is an accurate document. Let me tell you what the SWAT team is all about. It's contained on page 19 of 28 in the cabinet decision document from March of this year. This is what the SWAT team is all about and it's what this government is all about in so many cases-not all, to be fair, but in so many cases.

It says, "Staging SWAT photo opportunities, encouraging feature stories on the team's enforcement efforts with targeted sectors, and issuing periodic news releases at the onset, during and following special investigations will ensure that public awareness of SWAT team, its achievements and activities remains high."

It's all about photo opportunities. They'll come along and have their special uniforms and they will, when they have those special uniforms, be out there ready to have the photo opportunity. The Toronto Sun will be there and the National Post will be there to take the pictures, and the minister will be there as well. I know how concerned the public will be when they find out that what the SWAT team is about is photo opportunities.

I like what I find in many provisions of the legislation. We voted for it, and I said that I would support this on third reading, because I think many of the provisions in the legislation can be helpful, particularly if there's a government in power that will make the resources there available and also will have the will to prosecute in those cases. It's extremely important that we have that. I urge members of the government caucus to have those Ministry of the Environment positions filled. I think you can abandon the SWAT team.

The member for-I used to refer to it as Ottawa-Rideau-Ottawa West-Nepean now would know this. I won't ask him to get up and confirm it, but he would know this. It's the everyday work done by people in the law enforcement area, often drudgery, often boring work, but the everyday work done by environmental officers, particularly those in the investigation and enforcement branch, that will make the difference, not a SWAT team that's there for a lot of photo opportunities.

They said in this government document here today that they inspect only 10% of the sources of contamination in a year, of environmental degradation in a year, and these are important sources. They said what you really have to have is 500 new staff to do this. Remember, 900 staff were fired out the door. They said you have to put 500 staff back in place. I know that costs money, and oftentimes the protection of the public does cost money. Whether it's hiring new police officers, whether it's hiring anybody in the government services that provide a service, that's important. It's not an expenditure; it's an investment in the protection of people in this province.

The Harris government, by making drastic cuts to the Ministry of the Environment, increased the risk of a tragic circumstance facing Walkerton happening. That's most tragic, and I believe it didn't have to happen. But you increase the risk every time you dismantle various branches of government that are there to protect public health and safety.

I want to say to the members on the government side that I intend to support this bill this afternoon.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): We don't need your support.

Mr Bradley: The member for Etobicoke says, "We don't need the support," waves his hand and dismisses it, but you're the first person who always says the opposition is opposed to everything. We're not opposed to everything. We happen to believe-

Mr Hastings: Why don't you flip-flop?

Mr Bradley: I don't know whether the people at home can hear this. There's just a din of mumbles going on over there. You try to be reasonable, you try to support something, and all you get is the grumbling from the member for Etobicoke North. It's most unfortunate.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. If you feel the necessity to speak out, please remove yourself before I do it for you. The Chair recognizes the member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

The parliamentary assistant is here today. I want to say to the parliamentary assistant that there are many provisions of this bill with which I am in agreement. I hope that in a future piece of legislation he will restore what the Honourable Norm Sterling had in a previous bill in 1998. That would significantly improve the legislation we see this afternoon.

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak about how this government is keeping its promise to get tough on polluters. Step by step, we're putting in place legislation and resources we need to ensure that our environmental laws are enforced and to provide penalties to fit the offences against our environment. Essentially, we present a four-step action plan.

First, back in 1988, we introduced Bill 82. This was the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act. At that time, most of the regulations and other legislative tools available to ensure compliance and enforcement were more than two decades old. Ontario's legislation lagged behind other Canadian jurisdictions in making available the use of modern compliance tools such as administrative monetary penalties. It was obvious that stronger and clearer rules were needed for the regulators, for the people they regulate and for the public at large.

We brought Ontario in line with other provinces and made our laws better able to perform their intended purpose: deterring and punishing polluters and protecting our environment. Bill 82 laid the foundation for our action program by strengthening the compliance and enforcement provisions of the legislation administered by the Ministry of the Environment. It also increased the ministry's, as well as the courts', abilities to deter and punish those who do not obey the law.

Second, Bill 124, now before our Legislature, provides stronger and more appropriate penalties for offenders. This Toughest Environmental Penalties Act puts teeth in the mouth of Bill 82. It would result in the availability of the highe