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

June 6, 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-Jun-06 vol. A (PDF)

L067A - Tue 6 Jun 2000 / Mar 6 jun 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COMMUNITY FAIRS

ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY

IMMIGRANTS

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS

PELEE ISLAND

CAMPING

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM

ROTARY CHESHIRE HOMES

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PREMIER AND CABINET ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ DU PREMIER MINISTRE ET DU CONSEIL DES MINISTRES

ORAL QUESTIONS

WATER QUALITY

MEDICAL OFFICERS OF HEALTH

AIR AND WATER QUALITY

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

HYDRO RATES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

WATER QUALITY

LONG-TERM CARE

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

REGISTRAR GENERAL

PETITIONS

PROSTATE CANCER

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

LORD'S PRAYER

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

LORD'S PRAYER

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

KARLA HOMOLKA

DELAYED START OF SCHOOL

LORD'S PRAYER

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BRIAN'S LAW (MENTAL HEALTH LEGISLATIVE REFORM), 2000 / LOI BRIAN DE 2000 SUR LA RÉFORME LÉGISLATIVE CONCERNANT LA SANTÉ MENTALE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COMMUNITY FAIRS

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): Today I would like to take the opportunity to highlight some of the local community fairs held in my riding. Each summer, several communities host their friends, neighbours and visitors to a showcase of local talent, delicious cuisine and a festive community atmosphere.

Summer wouldn't be the same without the excitement created by our local fairs. If you can remember when you were a child and you visited the local fair, you enjoyed the goodies, the rides and the displays. These fairs are a great opportunity to witness the community spirit at its best.

In my riding, the fair season kicks off with the Iroquois Summer Festival, July 14 to 16, followed by the Avonmore Fair, July 21 to 23. August 11 to 13 is an especially busy weekend, with both Williamstown Fair, the oldest continuous running fair in Ontario, and the Winchester Dairyfest. August 17 is the weekend of the South Mountain Fair, followed by the other fair in that community, the Chesterville Fair, August 25 to 27. Finally, the summer fair season finishes with the Stormont County Fair held in Newington, September 1 to 4.

These fairs are a great opportunity to see what the community has to offer, and I invite all members of the Legislature to join us.

ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): Today is June 6, the 56th anniversary of the D-Day landing in Normandy. On this day in 1944, the men of the Canadian 3rd Division, shoulder to shoulder with two British and two American divisions, assaulted the walls of Hitler's Fortress Europe at a place called Juno Beach. Many were only 17 or 18 years old. Others had been in Britain since 1939 and were having trouble remembering Canada, the country they proudly served.

Ontario sent the Queen's Own Rifles, a proud Toronto regiment with a long history, plus London's First Hussars tank regiment. They fought alongside boys from New Brunswick, Regina and Winnipeg. The Nazi opposition was so fierce that it would take a month to achieve the objectives set for the first day's advance. We should be amazed at the fortitude and resilience of our troops, a tradition carried on through Holland, Korea, and dozens of United Nations missions to the present day.

All Canadians should be proud and humbled by the heroes of Normandy. Their example reminds us that freedom must be defended or it will be lost. The Canadians of 1944 understood that each citizen bears that heavy responsibility.

Today, on this 56th anniversary of D-Day, we salute their accomplishment and mourn the 5,479 Canadian troops who died in the battle for Normandy. The veterans and the dead of Normandy have our utmost gratitude.

IMMIGRANTS

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): In Ontario we have a tremendous advantage because literally thousands of educated immigrants arrive here, but unfortunately this government is doing nothing to welcome these immigrants or help them integrate their skills into Ontario's economy. For example, in 1997 the Harris government closed all Ontario welcome houses; in 1998 they cut funding for international languages.

Today Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals have made a commitment. Our commitment is that we will try to do whatever we can to help immigrants find jobs. We will do whatever we can to welcome them to Ontario to contribute to the economy. We will do whatever we can so that they can enter their professional lives fully.

We're now getting phone calls since we made that commitment, and immigrants are telling us that they're forced to be taxi drivers, pizza delivery people and restaurant cleaners, because they cannot enter their professions. They're being promised, outside our embassies, that when they come to Canada they can enter professional life. When they come here they find it's a different ballgame.

Today we're asking the Harris government to open the door and to open their eyes to this iniquitous situation. Immigrants deserve, especially when they have education, to enter professional lives.

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): In my community, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis volun teers will be selling cornflowers this Saturday and hosting a barbecue at the Orangeville Mall. This past weekend, walks for ALS in Alliston and Smiths Falls raised almost $20,000. When an ALS volunteer approaches you this weekend, please make a generous donation to the ALS Society so that the dream of finding a cure soon becomes a reality.

Imagine not being able to walk, write, smile, talk, eat and eventually even breathe on your own, and yet your mind and senses remain unaffected. This is what having ALS is like for over 3,000 Canadians who suffer from this disease.

It can strike anyone and results in complete paralysis and death, generally within two to three years of diagnosis. Two to three Canadians die every day from ALS, which is also known as Lou Gehrig's disease. A number of years ago, my own father succumbed to this disease. As a result, I personally know the pain a person with ALS and their family go through as they deal with ALS. Although promising research studies are being conducted, there is still no known cure.

Across Ontario, and in fact Canada, June is ALS Awareness Month. Throughout the month, volunteers will be canvassing in malls and public areas to raise funds to fight this devastating disease. All funds raised will be spent on ALS scientific research. If you can, buy a cornflower for ALS.

PELEE ISLAND

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): After a 36-day ferry strike that virtually crippled its tourist industry, the Pelee community is ready to bounce back and eager to make up for lost time.

Pelee Island is well known for its abundant wildlife and stunning natural scenery. Birders from around the world come to visit what some have dubbed the warbler capital of North America because of the spectacular songbird migration.

Vineyards on the island produce award-winning wines recognized for their quality nationally and abroad.

Accommodations are many and varied, ranging from campgrounds for those who like to rough it to cottages fully equipped with all the amenities, and from bed-and-breakfasts to hotels, motels and inns. As you can see, Pelee Island has something to offer for everyone.

Pelee Island was the winner of the 1999 Attractions Ontario Outdoor Award, and with good reason. It offers a wonderful and wide-ranging outdoor experience with all the comforts of home and it's in our own backyard.

To the people, businesses and workers of Pelee Island, thank you for your perseverance, patience, understanding and support during the service interruption. The people of Pelee Island are a hardy group, and now Pelee Island is back in business and waiting to welcome you.

CAMPING

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I want to bring to the attention of this Legislature probably one of the stupidest things I've seen this government do in the last six years. Can you imagine that this government has decided, by way of policies of the Ministry of Natural Resources, to limit camping with camper-trailers and tents to 21 days cumulative on crown land in northern Ontario? There's lots of land in northern Ontario, as we well know, and the government doesn't need to put a policy that basically says if I own a trailer I can only camp on crown land for 21 days.

All this policy is doing, quite frankly, is trying to force people off of crown land and into paid parks. I think this policy is wrong and it's going completely in the wrong direction.

Let me tell you what happened this last week. An agent of the Ministry of Natural Resources went to notify a camper that they had exceeded the 21-day limit. The camper agreed that they had done so and said, "I will move my trailer on Monday." What ended up happening? To make sure that the trailer had been properly marked, the MNR staff grabbed a spray bomb and painted the bumper of the trailer by way of marking it to be evicted from the crown land. This is nuts.

First of all, I call on the government to compensate those people who have had their trailers painted, and second, I call on this government to use a bit of common sense and allow people to camp on crown land. There's lots of it out there. I'm sure we can come up with a balanced policy.

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): From time to time, we in public life need to remind ourselves what the term "public" means. Oxford describes it as "open to or shared by all the people" and "provided by or concerning local or central government." The Leader of the Opposition showed that he does not understand the meaning of the word "public" when his personal staff prevented my assistant from observing a round table discussion he held with local mayors in my riding on May 26.

Mr McGuinty's personal staff ejected my representative from the event, even though Mr McGuinty's itinerary clearly indicated that the media were welcome. If anything that was said at the round table could be reported by the media to the public at large, what did Mr McGuinty have to fear from those same remarks being reported to an MPP? Do I sense a lack of courage?

I wrote to Mr McGuinty last week, asking him to apologize for barring my staff member from the session. But as the Orillia Packet and Times reported last Friday, he and his office continue to stonewall and are unrepentant.

The latest development merely confirms my impression of the incident, and the way Mr McGuinty's spin doctors staged the round table. They attempted to create the illusion of a public forum. During his visit, he told each group what they wanted to hear and he promised them everything: tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend. Some things never ever change around here.

Hon Frank Klees (Minister without Portfolio): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask for unanimous consent to allow the Leader of the Opposition to give his apologies to the member now.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Unanimous consent? I heard a no.

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): One of my constituents, Ms Kim Clemens, recently came to my office with a valid concern regarding the education of her two eldest sons. Ms Clemens is a single mother of four sons and is a recipient under the Ontario disability support plan. Ms Clemens has instilled a very staunch work ethic in her children, and for this reason her two eldest sons are working their way through university. They're hard-working, dedicated students who are trying to make a better life for themselves.

Both of Ms Clemens's eldest sons are currently living with their mother and, due to their ages, are not being covered under ODSP benefits, but a percentage of their income is being calculated as family income and, due to this fact, their mother's cheque has been drastically reduced. It seems contradictory that a government encourages students to attempt to be more self-sufficient when it comes to the funding of their education and then penalizes those students who are attempting to work their way through school.

I call on the Minister of Community and Social Services to look into this matter and to help those students who are trying to help themselves. It should be possible to exempt work earnings in the same amount if a student can prove that they are attending a recognized post-secondary institution. I would call on the minister to make these changes before the next school term commences in September 2000. It is in the best interests of both the students and the government to rectify the problem and allow these students to obtain their education without making their disabled parents suffer.

It is within the power of the government to change this injustice. I call upon the minister and the government to help those who are trying to help themselves.

ROTARY CHESHIRE HOMES

Mr David Young (Willowdale): What would you do if you could neither see nor hear? This is a startling and in many respects incomprehensible question for most of us. It is a stark reality for 3,000 Canadians who are deaf and blind and living in our communities.

Deaf-blindness is a unique disability that incorporates the dual sensory loss of both vision and hearing. Persons with this disability experience extreme isolation and the inability to access information that we take for granted.

Those living with deaf-blindness interact with the world through an intervener, a professional who acts as their eyes and who acts as their ears.

The Rotary Cheshire Home for persons with deaf-blindness in my riding of Willowdale is a unique non-profit housing project in Toronto. This home provides barrier-free housing for 16 individuals who are deaf-blind and provides intervener services to establish and increase the tenants' integration into the community and their self-sufficiency.

Now in their eighth year of operation, the Rotary Cheshire Homes are considered to be a worldwide model of excellence in the provision of housing and intervener services for people who are deaf-blind.

We are honoured to have with us today in the members' gallery some of the tenants and staff of this superb facility. We have with us Joyce Thompson, who is the executive director; Nancy Longo, intervener services manager; Cindy Babineau, housing manager; Carrie Newcombe, intervener; Catherine Dominie, deaf-blind tenant; Doreen Duffney, deaf-blind tenant; and Michael McHenry. Michael is a deaf-blind person who lives in the community and is very active both in the Rotary Cheshire house and beyond.

Notwithstanding the miraculous work of the interveners at Rotary Cheshire and elsewhere, there remains a great deal more to be done.

Today I would like to announce my intention to introduce a private member's bill which would proclaim the month of June Deaf-Blind Awareness Month in honour of these people.

VISITORS

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We have in the west gallery a former reeve and mayor of Esquimalt, in his day the youngest mayor in Canada. He has the dubious distinction of being the father of the member for St Paul's. I introduce to the House Ray Bryant.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): That is not a point of order but we appreciate when family members visit. Often the House is better behaved when we have family members here.

While we are introducing our guests, we also are pleased to inform all the members that we have visitors from the United States who are participants in the MidWestern Legislative Exchange. With us today we have Senator Bob Cupp from Ohio, Senator Leigh Herington from Ohio, Senator John Hottinger from Minnesota, Senator JoAnn Johnson from Iowa and Ilene Grossman from the Council of State Governments.

Please join me in welcoming our special guests.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PREMIER AND CABINET ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ DU PREMIER MINISTRE ET DU CONSEIL DES MINISTRES

Mr Smitherman moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 85,

An Act to restore the tradition of Legislative accountability for the Premier and Cabinet / Projet de loi 85, Loi visant à restaurer la tradition en matière de responsabilité législative du premier ministre et du Conseil des ministres.

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

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1349 to 1354.

The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Baird, John R.

Bartolucci, Rick

Beaubien, Marcel

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Ecker, Janet

Eves, Ernie L.

Gilchrist, Steve

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Martel, Shelley

Mazzilli, Frank

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Munro, Julia

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Smitherman, George

Stockwell, Chris

Tilson, David

Wilson, Jim

Wood, Bob

Interjections.

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

Nays

Dunlop, Garfield

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Hodgson, Chris

Kells, Morley

Runciman, Robert W.

Spina, Joseph

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Turnbull, David

Young, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 55; the nays are 11.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think there was a bit of confusion, obviously, as we went through this vote. I do believe the member for Dufferin-Peel voted twice: once on one side and once on the other, if you can check.

The Speaker: I thank the member for that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, so I can clarify it for the member. The member did stand twice. Just so they know, he was recorded as voting aye. Because he did stand for the aye vote, he was recorded as voting aye, the first time he voted. But I thank the member for pointing that out.

Hon Frank Klees (Minister without Portfolio): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There was in fact some confusion in this place, and I'll tell you why. There was absolutely no notice given about the contents of this bill. In future-

The Speaker: That's not a point of order. I thank the member.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It's not a point of order.

The member for a short statement on the bill is where we are at, I believe.

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): I'm not sure why there's such an uproar. It's rather an innocuous bill. It adds a new section, 3.1, to the Executive Council Act. Under the new section, if at the end of a session of the Legislature a minister of the crown, including the Premier, has not attended 60% of the oral question periods held during the session, $100 must be deducted from the minister's salary for each occasion by which his or her attendance fell short of 60%.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WATER QUALITY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question today, in the continuing absence of the Premier, is to the Minister of the Environment.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Member, take a seat. Stop the clock.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I thank the government members. Thank you very much for your help.

Members can't continue to do this. The standing orders are very clear where you cannot speak about the attendance here. What will happen when you do that, and I remind all members, is this afternoon when some member is not here, we'll have the other side do the same thing and it never ends. I would ask all members' co-operation in this. The leader of the official opposition knows that's not supposed to be done, and I would ask him to take that into consideration in the future. We have-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Windsor West, the member for Hamilton East, and the minister with responsibility for seniors, come to order, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will know we have an hour for question period. We've had our fun on a couple of bills; it's now time to get down to business. The leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Minister, can you now assure us, the people of the province of Ontario, can you guarantee us unequivocally, that everywhere in our province today our water is safe to drink?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): As I've indicated, Ontario's drinking water is 99.98% meeting the health objectives of the Ontario Drinking Water Objectives. I can tell you that that is the number in this province.

Mr McGuinty: I will take that answer to mean no, you cannot provide us with that assurance and you cannot provide us with that guarantee. Why is it then that your government is still spending its time, in light of that fact, trying to clean up your image instead of trying to clean up our water? Because yesterday and this morning, that's exactly what your Premier spent his time doing. This is what the headline says:

"Walkerton Won't End My Career: Harris

"I plan to be around for several elections."

Minister, here's a message from me through you to your boss on behalf of the people of Ontario: It's not about Mike Harris. It's not about his career. It's not about how many elections he plans to run in.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member will take a seat. Order. I've said on a number of occasions I need to hear the questions. We started off with yelling and screaming, which means I'm going to have to start warning people right off the bat. We can't continue when I can't hear the questions being asked with all sides hooting and hollering. I would appreciate your co-operation. Sorry for the interruption to the leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: To repeat, Minister, it's not about Mike Harris. It's not about his career. It's not about how many damned elections he plans to run in in the future. It's about life and death. People in this province, like people everywhere, need water to live. There is some water in this province that killed people. That's the issue.

I'm asking you on behalf of those people in that community and I'm asking on behalf of the people throughout Ontario, why is it that your guy, your boss, is spending time on some kind of a public image rehabilitation exercise when he should be focusing on cleaning up our water?

Hon Mr Newman: I can tell you that the Premier of this province and myself as the environment minister place the environment in the highest priority of this government. It's important that our water be protected in our province, not only our drinking water-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member, take his seat. Members will come to order. The member for Windsor West, this is her last warning. She was shouting across. We can't have it. You were the one that was shouting across. You've got a last warning.

Now the member for Windsor-St Clair on a point of order.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Mr Speaker, the member for Windsor West has not said anything.

The Speaker: With all due respect to the member, I am the one who is charged with keeping control in here, and there were situations where people were yelling. Quite frankly, I say to the member, I could have warned her at the beginning of this for her shouting across at that period of time. It's my decision to look at and warn people, and I'm going to warn people, and I'm going to name them. As I said before, it doesn't matter to me if we've got five members in here or 55 members, my duty is to maintain control. We are obviously starting off on a very, very controversial issue again.

As I said to the members before, I have one responsibility: That responsibility is to maintain order in here and I will do that, even if it means all the members are asked to leave.

The Minister of the Environment, I believe, is where we were.

Hon Mr Newman: In response to the Leader of the Opposition's statement, we do place a high priority on water in this province, we do place a high priority on the air we breathe, and we do place a high priority on the land. In fact, with respect to Walkerton, I can tell you that the government of Ontario has opened an office in Walkerton to assist the people of Walkerton. There has been $100,000 in seed money to date to help the people of Walkerton.

The office is there, it's part of the resource centre that's been set up by the municipality, and people from Walkerton are able to go there and have their questions answered. I know there are representatives there from many ministries, and the Ministry of the Environment is included in those ministries, to answer the questions on behalf of the people.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, I want to come back to the issue at hand-and by the way, we know where you place the environment when it comes to a priority here in Ontario. You cut the budget by more than 40%. You let go one third of the staff. You stopped testing for E coli in Ontario. That's what you think of the budget. That's what you think of the safety of our water. Tell me again: What kind of perverse thinking, what kind of perverse motivation dictates that your Premier, your boss, in the face of seven deaths, something unprecedented in the history of this province, chose to make as his priority-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member, take his seat. The minister-please come to order. It works for both sides, with the yelling and screaming on both sides. Sorry for the interruption to the leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: Speaker, I've got to tell you that when you stand up and interrupt me like that, it is very, very disconcerting. I would prefer-

Interjections.

Mr McGuinty: I would prefer to put up with the heckling so that I can continue my question to the minister.

Minister, tell me, why is it that your boss, the Premier, in the face of this unprecedented calamity when it comes to the safety of our water in Ontario, is out there running a PR spin? Why is he not acting in the interests of all Ontarians but especially in the interests of the people of Walkerton, assuming his responsibility, not cleaning up his image but instead cleaning up our water?

Hon Mr Newman: It's quite unbelievable hearing that statement from the Leader of the Opposition. He makes simply outrageous statements to say that E coli is not tested in this province. He may be referring to the drinking water surveillance program, where water tests are done two to six times per year, and E coli being tested in that. Municipalities and public utilities in this province test always for E coli. That's what they do, and to hear the Leader of the Opposition say it's not proves that he just doesn't get it. He talks about our Premier.

Our Premier is showing strong leadership in this issue, as he has on all issues. He's shown far more leadership than the Leader of the Opposition has.

The Speaker: New question, leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: I'm going to do something that I'm sure the Premier won't do in the weeks ahead: I'm going to stick with the environment minister.

Minister, I'm going to give you a chance now to show us all what you are truly made of. The minister's PR campaign involves blaming everybody but himself. At first he blamed the NDP, the previous government. Then he trotted out the old human error theory. Now he's blaming Walkerton itself. Your Premier said, "Too many communities, including Walkerton, let critical systems slide while they spent money on projects such as new community centres."

Minister, Walkerton built its community centre 30 years ago. Show me that you've got the courage, you've got the guts, you've got the gumption here today to reject your Premier's pathetic attempt to blame others instead of accepting responsibility for himself and his government.

Hon Mr Newman: No one is blaming anyone. I think we've got to be very clear about that. The member opposite ought to know that there are several investigations underway with respect to the tragic situation in Walkerton. There's the OPP investigation, there's the investigation from the Ministry of the Environment through the investigations and enforcement branch and there's the independent coroner's inquest, as well as the inquiry that's been called. Everyone wants to get to the bottom of this. Everyone wants answers. The people of Walkerton want answers; the people of Ontario want answers.

Mr McGuinty: The first step towards recovery is to admit and take responsibility. That's what this is all about. We're never going to get to the bottom of this unless you own up to your contribution to this mess. Your Premier, your government, stuck municipalities with a $1-billion bill. You downloaded everything from roads and bridges to social housing, ambulances and public transit. And you downloaded water testing. You told municipalities that was now their responsibility. They had to come up with the money; they had to find a private sector firm to do that testing for them. Then you fired the provincial inspectors.

Your boss, the Premier, yesterday had the gall to foist blame for the Walkerton tragedy on to our municipalities. He has not only downloaded responsibility for a variety of services, now he wants to download responsibility for the Walkerton tragedy on to our municipal partners. On behalf of all those municipalities, I say to you, Minister, will you today stand up in this House and apologize to those people working so hard in our municipalities, trying to withstand all of the stuff that you're downloading on to them on a regular basis?

Hon Mr Newman: I will not apologize for putting safe drinking water as a priority for the people of Ontario. Quite frankly, I think everyone in Ontario who serves in government, whether it be at the municipal level, the provincial level or the federal level, ought to put safe drinking water as their number one priority. It should go ahead of community centres, it should go ahead of arenas and it should go ahead of libraries, because the health and safety of the people of Ontario is far too important.

Mr McGuinty: I'm not sure I've seen any minister at any time in this Legislature display more nerve than this minister who just told us that he stands for safe drinking water in Ontario. On his watch so far, seven Ontarians have died. That's the bottom line. This is life and death. At some point in time, somebody over there is going to have to stand up and take some responsibility for what's happening when it comes to our drinking water in Ontario.

People in Walkerton are looking to you today for some help. We put forward an emergency safe water plan. We begged you to come up with some compensation. You put forward a measly, paltry, insulting, pathetic $100,000. That works out to less than $20 for every resident in the community of Walkerton.

Minister, will you now understand that this kind of PR, this kind of spin, is not in the interests of the people of Walkerton? It's not in the interests of the people of Ontario. What they want you to do is to begin to take responsibility for your contribution to this problem and to start acting in a responsible way to clean up their water.

Hon Mr Newman: This government has always acted in a responsible manner. In fact, when I hear the Leader of the Opposition, he's already reached his conclusions. He's already come to his conclusions from his investi gation. But the important thing is, there are four investigations underway in this province right now to get to the bottom of the matter in Walkerton. As I mentioned, there's the Ministry of the Environment investigation, the OPP investigation, the coroner's inquest and of course the public inquiry.

We have been there for the people of Walkerton. We've opened an office in Walkerton so that people can come forward who may have questions that they want answers to, who may require some sort of financial assistance, who have been affected as a result of this tragedy. That $100,000 is the beginning. That's money we've put up so that the people of Walkerton can have some access to start to rebuild their lives.

The Speaker: New question.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): To the Minister of the Environment: People are shocked that your Premier and now your House leader have once again stooped to blaming municipalities for the Walkerton crisis.

Let me set the record straight here on the provincial water protection fund you keep talking about. As you know, it doesn't even allow a municipality to get money until after they've had a consistent failure to meet water quality objectives. In fact, municipalities have already, through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, been asking for a federal infrastructure program because yours is not good enough. If your government thinks that municipalities should spend more money on water and sewer projects, put money into a dedicated fund for sewer and water projects so municipalities don't have to make choices between safe water and community centres.

Minister, will you reverse your decision to cancel this program? Will you allow municipalities funding before people get sick, and will you restore proper funding levels to this program?

Hon Mr Newman: I think it's important to look at the facts in this issue. The provincial water protection fund was a $200-million fund that was set up in this province. Originally, the fund was to be over three years so that municipalities had an opportunity to access that money to make improvements to their water treatment facilities or to their sewage treatment facilities in the province.

What this government did was to accelerate that money so that it was made available to municipalities over a two-year period because it was a priority. We said, "Let's get that money to municipalities in a more expeditious manner." In fact, since 1994-95 in this province over 2.5 billion in infrastructure program dollars have come through the municipal level of government, the provincial level of government and the federal level of government, because all three levels of government realized that safe drinking water is a priority for the people of Ontario.

Ms Churley: Minister, I am trying to point out to you, and you don't seem to be getting it, that your government is planning to completely get rid of that program next year. Furthermore, you made the criteria so tight that many municipalities couldn't apply because they couldn't meet your strict criteria. You must commit to keeping that fund going.

Yesterday my leader asked you to send in emergency personnel to help with the door-to-door inspections so that people won't have to wait eight weeks or more to turn on the taps. Today we were shocked to learn that Ottawa made a direct offer to your government to send in personnel and you turned them down. This is absolutely unbelievable. People are going to have to wait eight weeks because there aren't enough personnel to do inspections door to door. We've called on you to bring in experts from across the country, if necessary. You had an offer from the federal government and you turned them down.

What in the world is going on here? Will you explain to the people of Walkerton why you turned down an offer for extra help that could enable them to turn on their taps more quickly?

Hon Mr Newman: It is unbelievable, because it's not true. In fact the federal government was there on the scene. They had epidemiologists in Walkerton. I believe the federal government also had other representatives there in the beginning, from Health and Welfare Canada, to inspect water. This would have been approximately two weeks ago. We did not turn down any help from anyone in regard to the situation in Walkerton.

Ms Churley: Then, Minister, I hope you're saying that you will take up our suggestion to bring in experts from across the country, if necessary, and that you will indeed bring in this offer from the federal government for help.

Minister, you weren't there but I was at a press conference today. A number of environmental experts came to talk about the need for safe drinking water legislation. They also said that your proposed regulations would not prevent another Walkerton. A key feature would be legislated regular testing for municipal water systems, with results made public immediately, which is something we've been calling for. What you're doing is telling citizens to go to a Web site to look at three-year-old data on a list that doesn't even include most communities.

I will be introducing such a law and I will look forward to your support, but citizens need this testing information today. I ask you again-I've been asking you for over a week-will you release that information today?

Hon Mr Newman: There are results from the drinking water surveillance program on the ministry Web site. I've indicated that to the member opposite. She says they're 1997 data. Well, they are 1997 data. Last week the opposition parties were talking about the CEC report and seemed to quote from that, and that was based on 1997 data. It seemed then that it was fine to quote from 1997 data, but not in this case. I'm not sure exactly where they're coming from on this one.

It's important to note that the proposed regulations I spoke about a week ago Monday are still being drafted. I said they'd be ready within two weeks. We're now at about the eight-day mark. We have a few more days to go. Ministry staff are still fine-tuning and refining the regulations I intend to bring forward, and I will work very quickly to ensure that receives passage in cabinet.

MEDICAL OFFICERS OF HEALTH

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Minister of Health. In the wake of the tragedy at Walkerton there certainly have been a number of heroes-family members caring for ill loved ones; neighbours taking care of each other-and I think for most Ontarians one name stands out as a hero in this tragedy. That's the medical officer of health, Dr Murray McQuigge. Without Dr McQuigge, more people would have died; the tragedy that is would have been exponential in its reach. I think it's as horrifyingly simple as that.

Minister, under your watch there are seven regions in this province that have no full-time medical officer of health. In fact, four of them have no medical officer of health at all. For the past two to three years people in areas like Oxford, Lambton, Kent-Chatham, Elgin-St Thomas, Haldimand-Norfolk and Huron must have been at risk, and they have to be at risk, because without a medical officer of health there is no one to report to when an incident like this comes forward and there's no one to take action.

I know you're aware of this. I know your ministry has been aware of it. But, Minister, there's a law that says municipalities must have a medical officer of health. What are you doing to enforce that law?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I would certainly agree; we need to congratulate Dr McQuigge on the leadership he has undertaken. As the member probably also knows, the chief medical officer of health for the province of Ontario, Dr D'Cunha, has been working very closely with Dr McQuigge and others in the community in order to ensure that the support and the resources are provided to the Walkerton community. As she probably also knows, we have indicated that whatever human resources and financial resources need to be made available will occur.

In fact, we did make available to Walkerton another medical officer of health to assist in order to ensure that there was appropriate support and leadership.

I would also say to the member that we do know that throughout the communities in Ontario there is a need for medical officers of health, and all the appropriate steps are being taken in order to ensure that each community in this province does have a medical officer of health.

Ms Lankin: What do you mean, "All the steps are being taken"? For two to three years, 643,000 people have lived without a full-time medical officer of health. In some of those regions they're sharing medical officers. They've decided to do that because they are cash-strapped and they say because this was downloaded on them they're cutting corners and this is how they're going forward.

The law says there must be a medical officer of health. The president of the Association of Local Public Health Agencies has said clearly that sharing a medical officer of health is like having a babysitter instead of a parent. You need to have someone there on the job. Four of those regions have no one at all. They're all around the Walkerton area; they're all in the area of the most intensive agricultural farming; they're all in an area at risk of this kind of contamination of their groundwater and other public health issues.

Minister, there's a law. There is nothing to do to "try" to get the municipalities to hire; there's simply a matter of you doing your job to enforce the law. Will you commit today to take emergency measures and put a full-time medical officer of health in every region of this province to protect the health of all of our citizens?

Hon Mrs Witmer: We have already taken those steps. As the member knows as well, we have not downloaded the delivery of public health services in this province. Local municipalities have always had the responsibility. Yes, I can assure the member that those steps have already been taken.

AIR AND WATER QUALITY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I'd like to return to the Minister of the Environment. Let's take a look at some of the facts here when it comes to what our air and our water are doing to Ontarians today. Child asthma rates in Ontario are going through the roof as a result of breathing air that is making our kids sick. Every year, 1,800 people in Ontario die from air pollution. Every year, 25,000 people in Ontario die from cancer. Ontario's cancer rate is rising by about 3% every year. If you don't think, by the way, Minister, that those are environmental issues, then you don't deserve to even visit the environment minister's office, let alone be the minister.

Our air and our water are killing Ontarians. In the meantime, the funding for your ministry is at its lowest level since 1971. At the time of the last budget, when the Premier came and knocked on your door and said, "I need $4 billion in tax cuts for corporations; I need to take some more money from your ministry," you rolled over. You said, "Take whatever you need."

I'm asking you now to tell me in a way that I can understand, in a way that all Ontarians can understand, why is it that you pretend that the Ministry of the Environment is a real priority for you and your government?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): Environment is indeed a priority for this government and a priority for me as the Minister of the Environment. We take air quality, water quality and the quality of our land very seriously in the ministry. I can tell you that with respect to air quality there are many positive measures this government has brought forward, such as the Drive Clean program, which is bringing-

Interjections.

Hon Mr Newman: Members opposite laugh about the Drive Clean program and fail to acknowledge the positive effect it has had on the environment with respect to reducing air emissions from vehicles in our province. They're in denial about that.

They fail to recognize that I placed a moratorium on the sale of all coal-fired generation plants in this province. They fail to acknowledge that we have an anti-smog action plan involving over 50 partners, all working together in industry, in government and through other agencies as well to ensure that we're reducing smog levels in our province.

Mr McGuinty: I guess I'd better offer my humblest and most sincere apologies to this minister. What we really should be doing then, given the wonderful accomplishments of this government when it comes to the Ministry of the Environment, is awarding them with some kind of certificate for all they've done for Ontarians.

Let's come back to the facts, which are staring you in the face: 1,800 Ontarians are dying every year as a result of breathing bad air that is making them sick. Our emergency wards are being overcrowded by parents who are bringing their kids in suffering from asthma as a result of breathing bad air that is making them sick. Twenty-five thousand Ontarians die every year from cancer. Our cancer rates are going up by 3%. And to top it all off, just a few weeks ago, seven people died in our province as a result of drinking bad water that killed them.

So tell me again now why you and your government should be recognized for their outstanding achievements when it comes to environmental issues in our province.

Hon Mr Newman: Once again I say to the member that this government takes the protection of the environment very seriously. We've brought forward many programs, as I mentioned: the anti-smog action plan; the Drive Clean program; in fact, a new regulation that requires all generators of electricity in Ontario to not only monitor but publicly report their emission levels. This hasn't been done in this province. It's a positive step forward.

The member asks about our government. In June 1999, the people of Ontario rejected your environmental policies, they didn't reject this government's.

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): My question is to the Minister of Education. The tragedy that has occurred in Walkerton has been felt across the province. The hearts of my constituents and my own heart go out to the people in the community. I understand that schools in Walkerton are also affected by the situation. I have read that the students from Walkerton will be completing their school year in neighbouring communities. What is this government doing to assist these students to complete their school year?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): There's no question that the schools in the Walkerton area have indeed been very affected by the tragedy that has occurred in that community. The staff of the board and the teachers have done an excellent job of ensuring that the curriculum, the teaching, the courses for these students will continue, that their year will not be jeopardized, because this board had put some good plans in place and is continuing to do that. I and my staff have been in touch with the board to make sure we are assisting them in whatever way we can. We'll be providing additional monies to them.

For one step, $300,000 will be going to the boards to assist them in some of the additional costs they are incurring. I am very pleased to say that they have taken very good steps to ensure (1) the children are safe and (2) their education will continue for this year.

Interjections.

Mrs Munro: I am glad to see that this government is providing assistance to school boards as they work to make alternative arrangements for their students. I send my best wishes to the students of Walkerton for their academic success. How will the funding that was announced today help the school board meet those needs?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I find it interesting, in light of what the Leader of the Opposition said earlier, that they would scoff at steps taken to help the schools and the school boards in this community to help make sure that students continue their education and are indeed safe. The additional resources that we are putting forward-as I say, we have been in contact with the boards. Our staff are meeting. If there are additional steps we can take to help them-we are going to help pay the expenses for holding the classes in other facilities and in other communities, transportation costs.

In some cases there have been extra tutorials, remediation help, counselling help for the students; also making sure there are adequate supplies and other activities. So there are a number of additional expenses the board has incurred, and we are working with them to ensure their education can continue and they have the resources available to make sure that occurs.

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Minister, here is what your ministry staff are saying about your ministry today. Doug McDougall, an investigations officer with the ministry in Timmins, says:

"`Since the cuts'"-that's your over 30% cut in staff and 40% cut in budget-"`everybody's been walking around like zombies' ... .

"`We'll never get over it. The whole ministry is in shambles. All you can do is shake your head,' he said, referring to the 900 jobs cut ... ."

"Ambitious civil servants have been told to avoid the environment ministry at all costs. `It's the kiss of death for your career,' said a senior civil servant in another ministry.

"Mr McDougall said workers, most of whom initially came to the ministry because they felt passionate about the environment, are beleaguered not only because many of their colleagues have been shown the door, but also because the cuts have run so deep that they feel they can no longer do their jobs ... .

"Because sweeping changes were implemented so quickly, many long-time employees worried that the government had not put the appropriate checks and balances in place to ensure that environmental disasters didn't happen.

"`There was a collective shudder through the ministry. It was like: "Oh my God. Do [the Tories] have any idea what they're doing?"' said a former investigator who lost his job during the cuts ... ."

All kinds of ministry employees are now saying these things, but there's a cold chill coming over the ministry and that chill is the threat of job loss and of demotion and of lack of promotion if they dare speak out and inform the people of this province what's going on.

Minister, will you guarantee unequivocally to this House today that a witch hunt is not on in your ministry and that you will allow your ministry employees to say to the media and to the public whatever they deem appropriate in the interests of the people of this province?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): The quote that the member opposite raises is not a view that I share and I know it's not a view that the majority of employees in the Ministry of the Environment share. In fact, as I travel the province-and I've had an opportunity to meet many employees of the Ministry of the Environment-I find them to be very committed and very dedicated to the protection of the environment in this province.

I saw that commitment and dedication first hand in Scarborough at the U.S.E. Hickson fire, when ministry staff were there on the scene and throughout the entire incident, and I want to commend them for that. Also in the ministry offices across the province, I can tell you that the employees are very professional, they're very dedicated and they too are committed to the protection of the environment in this province, just as I am.

Mr Bradley: I didn't get an answer. If you look at the chronology in Walkerton, there are a lot of people who could tell us a lot about what happened there and other places but may feel intimidated to do so.

Let me read to you what the Ombudsman said in her report:

"As Ombudsman, I have witnessed the development of what I can only describe as an atmosphere of fear among public servants, where senior officials are afraid to question the wisdom of the government's approach for fear of reprisal or loss of reappointment. As a result, many of the values upon which the public service has historically relied, including the obligation to `speak truth to power' even when the truth is unwelcome, have been seriously undermined. I have also observed a not unrelated trend as some senior officials become unwilling to admit their inability to deliver adequate service.

Instead they offer reassurances that despite evidence to the contrary, all is well, things are getting better, and improvement is just around the corner."

We have ministry employees and we have the independent Ombudsman of this province both saying that your ministry's hands are tied, that your employees can no longer speak the truth. Will you assure the House-which you didn't do in response to my first question-and the people of this province that you will not put a cover over the ministry and that you will not prohibit the loyal civil servants in the Ministry of the Environment and other ministries from speaking out about the problems that exist in your ministry and others and the dangers to the public in this province?

Hon Mr Newman: I again remind the member that there are four investigations underway with respect to Walkerton. There's the Ministry of the Environment's investigation through the investigations and enforcement branch, there's the public inquiry that has been called, there's the independent OPP investigation that's underway, and of course there is the coroner's inquest.

I can tell you that a week ago Monday in my press conference, I clearly stated that all Ministry of the Environment staff must fully co-operate with any investigation whether it be the public inquiry, the OPP investigation, the coroner's inquest or through the investigations and enforcement branch of the Ministry of the Environment.

The people in the ministry are working very hard to protect the water, air and land on behalf of the people of Ontario.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): My question is to the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology. Minister, as you know, in my riding of Niagara Falls the hydroelectric industry is part and parcel of our history. Many companies came to the Niagara riding back in the early 1900s because of low hydro rates and many people in my municipality have come to count on low hydro rates.

The deregulation of the electricity industry in this province was intended to bring in some competition and ultimately reduce hydro rates. However, I have heard that some municipal utilities in Ontario have filed electricity rate applications with the OEB which request rate hikes. My constituents are concerned that this will mean increases to electricity rates. Can you comment on the situation, Minister?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): I thank my colleague from Niagara Falls for the question.

It is disappointing that some municipalities in the province have asked for more than a 100% increase in their distribution rates in the electricity sector. That's the rate that they charge to get the power to people's homes on the wires that are on poles or buried in the ground in front of your homes and businesses.

The Energy Competition Act of 1998 allowed municipalities to earn a greater rate of return. The act makes it clear, as does the white paper that preceded it, that municipalities are to earn that rate of return; in other words, find the efficiencies. If you want a greater rate of return on your distribution business than you've received in the past, find that through efficiencies. As we say, "Squeeze efficiencies, don't squeeze customers."

Municipalities in this province are free to double or triple property taxes, but they don't do that, so I ask them, why are they doubling and tripling their taxes on the wires in the electricity sector? It's morally wrong and we're not going to tolerate it.

Mr Maves: Minister, it's reassuring to hear that you're on this case and that your interest is to protect consumers. You've outlined what municipal utilities should do to keep rates down for their customers, but what is our own company, Ontario Hydro Services, doing to ensure rates are low?

Hon Mr Wilson: They are leading by example. I, as the shareholders' Minister of Energy on behalf of the people of Ontario, told our own company, Ontario Hydro Services Corp, now called Hydro One, that it has to squeeze efficiencies and not squeeze customers. It therefore has issued two press releases over the last three months indicating that it will not be raising its distribution rates, it will not be raising its transmission rates, that it hasn't had an increase in about six years and it won't for several more years. It's finding efficiencies. As you know, we just had a pension buyout of employees.

They're finding efficiencies and earning a good rate of return for the shareholder by squeezing efficiencies.

I also want to commend Whitby Hydro, which had a press conference two weeks ago to indicate that it's going to do what the government is asking. They're not going to rob from Peter to pay Paul; they're not going to rob the electricity system to pad their municipal budgets just prior to a municipal election. They are holding the line on rates, as is Thunder Bay. Thunder Bay has come together in a consortium of about nine utilities. They're holding the rates too. I congratulate those utilities and I congratulate Hydro One for doing a good job and thinking of the customers first.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. When you stand up in this House and say that you and your government take environmental protection in this province seriously, I want you to know that nobody takes you seriously. Your government just cut another $16 million out of the budget, when we're rolling in money, when you've given another $8 billion away in tax breaks and tax cuts. You have deregulated every statute within the Ministry of the Environment.

You call environmental protection "red tape." By next year you want to get rid of 50% of regulations, calling them red tape. Minister, when are you going to listen to everybody across Ontario who is telling you that you are not protecting the environment? On the contrary, you have become the minister against the environment.

We've heard shocking news today that employees at the Ministry of the Environment have had a gag order put on them, that they're being intimidated, that there's a witch hunt going on. Are you going to guarantee us today that that witch hunt will be taken off and you'll allow those employees to speak publicly about what's going on in the Ministry of the Environment?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): If you look at the budget figures for this past year, there is $8 million that we are no longer funding for the Y2K program. There is $2 million in one-time relocation costs that are not being funded this year because we don't need to spend money on that. There has been $1 million in salary awards for our employees within the ministry that won't be in the budget for this year. We've accelerated funding on many programs. Several programs that were to come to an end or were one-time funding projects will cease to be because they've run their course.

But I say to the member opposite, there are the four investigations underway. There is the investigation through the Ministry of the Environment's investigations and enforcement branch. There is the public inquiry. There's also the independent OPP investigation, as well as the coroner's inquest. Ministry staff are going to fully co-operate. If any of those officials or any of those authorities have any questions for them, I know that Ministry of the Environment staff will be there to answer those questions.

Ms Churley: Minister, when are you going to get it? You just did it again. I put to you, as everybody across the province has now put to you, that you don't have enough resources in your ministry to protect the environment. It is as simple as that.

I'm asking two things of you here, and I want direct answers. First of all, I want to know that ministry staff will be able to go forward to the inquiry in an open and honest way and not fear for their jobs. I want a guarantee of that in the terms of reference. The second thing I want you to commit to today is to admit that there are not enough resources in your budget and that you will go to the cabinet table and speak to Ernie Eves, speak to your Premier, and demand that the $100 million that was taken out of your budget over the past five years be put back in immediately. Will you do that today?

Hon Mr Newman: I always give direct answers. The member opposite may disagree with my answers, but I give direct answers and I think she knows that. I mentioned the four investigations that are underway, that if any ministry staff are asked questions, they will fully co-operate, whether it be the public inquiry, the OPP investigation, the coroner's inquest or the Ministry of the Environment investigation through the investigations and-

Ms Churley: What about the money, the resources? Cut out the bullshit.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Will the member take his seat. Even though the member is way down at the other end, I heard that and I would ask her to withdraw that word. We can't have language like that in the chamber.

Ms Churley: Withdrawn.

The Speaker: Sorry for the interruption. Minister.

Hon Mr Newman: As I've indicated, I would expect ministry staff to fully co-operate with any investigation. Whether it be the public inquiry, the OPP, the coroner's inquest or the ministry's investigations through the investigations and enforcement branch, I would expect all ministry employees to fully co-operate, as I believe all government employees and officials ought to.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. There's a question that I know weighs heavily on the minds of Ontarians. They want to know this: Can you guarantee us that what happened at Walkerton cannot now happen in any other community in Ontario that draws its water from a public system?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): What I can say is that the new regulation that is being brought forward, which gives the force of law to several procedures and objectives that were in place in this province, would be there to protect the people of Ontario. If it brings clarity to the situation by having it in a regulation so that everyone who is involved with water facilities in this province, whether they be the actual owner-operator of the facility, medical officers of health, ministry employees or labs doing the testing, I think it's important that all procedures be followed. What this new regulation will do is bring clarity to it.

Mr McGuinty: I want the public to take careful note of this minister's answer to my question. I want to repeat the question for him again: Can you guarantee us that what happened at Walkerton cannot today happen in any other community in Ontario that draws its water from the public system? The minister did not answer that question with the only answer that is acceptable to Ontarians, which would have been a yes. What that means is we've got to ask ourselves now, where is the emergency response plan?

I say this in the presence of the Minister of Finance: Where is the additional funding that should be flowing into the ministry right away? Where is the plan to increase our staffing complement? Where are all those kinds of things that have to be done in order to rectify the situation and provide assurance to the people of Ontario?

Once more, on behalf of the people of Ontario, Minister, my question is: Can you guarantee us that what happened in Walkerton cannot today happen in any other community in Ontario that draws its water from the public system?

Hon Mr Newman: I can pledge this guarantee: that we will do everything humanly possible to ensure that tragedies such as the one that happened in Walkerton never again happen in this province. The quality of drinking water in this province-99.8% of drinking water in this province meets the health-related objectives of the Ontario Drinking Water Objectives. That is why the new regulation that will be coming forward will require that each and every certificate of approval for water facilities in this province be reviewed by the end of this year.

Certificates of approval will be approved every three years after that on an ongoing basis so we can ensure that the people of Ontario have the safest drinking water possible.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, I know that our government has made aggressive reforms to long-term care in Ontario. Your April 1998 announcement to develop 20,000 new beds and to rebuild the 15,835 existing beds is unprecedented in Ontario's history and means a $1.2-billion investment for long-term care in Ontario. I am also aware that this unprecedented investment was due primarily to the fact that not one new bed was built in this province in the 10 years prior to our election in 1995.

I know that this will mean more than 350 new long-term-care beds and the rebuilding of almost 500 existing beds in Simcoe county, which I know our community will most definitely benefit from. I am very pleased that in my riding of Simcoe North, we are about to open 100 rebuilt beds at Hillcrest Village in Midland in late August and another 112 new long-term-care beds at Leacock Point in Orillia. They will open early next winter.

Minister, I understand that yesterday you made yet another important investment into Ontario's long-term-care sector. Could you take the time to expand on yesterday's announcement for the members of this House today?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): As a result of conversations that we've had with the long-term-care stakeholders and the long-term-care associations, we announced yesterday that, retroactive to April 1, 2000, our government is now allowing the long-term-care facility operators to retain 100% of the preferred accommodation revenues. This will mean there is an additional $47 million available in new funding to ensure high quality continuing care for the residents in those facilities, and there are approximately 57,000 residents.

This funding will be directed to accommodation services, such as improved dietary, laundry, housekeeping and other general maintenance services. Also, this will help to expedite the building of the 20,000 beds and renovating the 16,000 others.

Mr Dunlop: I know that Ontarians are all relieved that this government is continuing to move forward to address the growing needs of our aging population, those needs that were not addressed by previous governments. This $47 million being made available to long-term-care facilities in Ontario will surely further our government's commitment to ensuring that the needs of our aging population will continue to be met in the future. I wonder, Minister, have you got any reaction from the long-term-care associations on this important announcement and what it will mean for Ontario's long-term-care sector?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Yes. Since coming to office, our government certainly has recognized the needs of our rapidly growing aging population, and we recognized that there had been no beds built in the province for over 10 years prior to our 1998 announcement of 20,000 new beds. I can tell you, working co-operatively with the stakeholders and the people in the province of Ontario, we have done everything we can in order to ensure that the beds are going to be available.

Certainly the reaction from the associations has been very positive. I would just quote from Vida Vaitonis, executive director of the Ontario Long Term Care Association, where she commends the government for our "ongoing reinvestment in the LTC sector," and the fact that they look forward to continuing to work with us "on our mutual goal to provide the best possible care and services to the current and future residents of long-term care."

Mr Speaker, let me assure you and all members of the House that it is our government's intention to do everything we can to ensure we have the appropriate services for our growing and our older population.

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I want to return to the Minister of the Environment. We are very, very concerned about your inability to provide the assurance-the precise assurance-that the people of Ontario are looking for. If we examine the chronology of events that took place at Walkerton, at one point in time information regarding contaminated water was directed to your ministry and your officials sat on that information. They did not notify public officials at Walkerton, either at the municipal level or in terms of the health authorities.

Can you tell us today, can you assure us today, can you in fact guarantee us today that at no time in the future could that ever take place again, and tell us specifically what you have done to ensure that will never happen again?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): The leader of the official opposition would know that there are investigations underway and I cannot comment on anything in particular. There is the investigation through the Ministry of the Environment's investigations and enforcement branch. There is also the public inquiry that's underway, there is the investigation by the Ontario Provincial Police, and there is the coroner's inquest.

All of these investigations are obviously going to look at all matters pertaining to Walkerton, whether it be activities from the Ministry of the Environment, anything to do with the local municipality, the public utilities, the role of the medical officer of health. All of these issues are going to be looked at in a way to get at the bottom of it because, after all, we all want answers. That's what the people of Walkerton want and that's what the people of Ontario want.

Mr McGuinty: This response is no less than absolutely terrifying. This minister is telling us that apparently he has to wait for the outcome of a variety of inquiries and inquests. But on his watch as Minister of the Environment, as minister for safe and clean drinking water in Ontario, there is nothing he can do; there are no lessons that he can draw from this particular example; there are no directives that could be sent to his own officials inside his own ministry. This is completely unacceptable, and on behalf of the people of Ontario, Minister, I'm asking you to step aside.

Let's get somebody over there who's prepared to get to the bottom of this inside their own ministry, take responsibility and make our water safe.

Hon Mr Newman: This isn't the first time the leader of the official opposition has put words in my mouth and put words in the mouth of other members on this side of the House. Obviously there are measures in place to ensure nothing like this ever happens again in this province. There are many unanswered questions, and that's what we want answers to.

What we do know is that testing was done, and we do know that the results were reported but were not as broadly shared as they ought to have been. Why were the lab results not shared as procedures required? Why were there delays in notification? Clearly there was a breakdown in communications that seems to have occurred. Errors in judgment appear to have played a role, perhaps at many levels of government.

We need to get to the bottom of it. We need to find out what happened. That's why there are the four investigations underway: through the Ministry of the Environment's investigations and enforcement branch, also through the public inquiry, also through the Ontario Provincial Police investigation, as well as the coroner's inquest.

REGISTRAR GENERAL

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Ontarians depend on essential services every day that are provided-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The member for Hamilton East, come to order, please. Sorry for the interruption; the member for London-Fanshawe.

Mr Mazzilli: Obviously the Liberals do not care about my constituents, but I certainly care about my constituents.

My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Ontarians depend on services every day and prioritizing of those services. The federal Liberals have cut health care; our military is aging. Under your ministry, you provide many services. Can you explain to my constituents what they are and how efficient they are?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I want to thank the member for London-Fanshawe for the question. The Office of the Registrar General registers all vital events such as births, deaths and marriages that occur in the province of Ontario. In addition to registering these events, the office also provides proof in the form of certificates and certified copies of registration. Proof of registration, particularly of birth, is required to access the basic entitlements of any society, including health care, education and out-of-province travel documentation.

As you can see from the number of public services that require vital statistic information from the registrar general's office, the need to obtain service when, where and how a client wishes to access this is extremely important.

PETITIONS

PROSTATE CANCER

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas prostate cancer is one of the leading causes of fatal cancer in Ontario;

"Whereas prostate cancer is the second leading cause of fatal cancers for males;

"Whereas early detection is one of the best tools for being victorious in our battle against cancer;

"Whereas the early detection blood test known as PSA (prostate specific antigen) is one of the most effective tests at diagnosing early prostate cancer;" and

whereas the Minister of Health's inaction is literally causing men to die needlessly;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to encourage the Ministry of Health and the minister to have this test added to the list of services covered by OHIP, and that this be done immediately in order for us to save lives and beat prostate cancer."

Of course, I affix my signature to it as I am in complete agreement.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I present a petition on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Durham, specifically from Gwen Meraw, Jean Brock, Mary Tippins and a number of other important and valued constituents.

A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Oak Ridges moraine is a glacial ridge running across the top of Toronto including Caledon, King, Aurora, East Gwillimbury, Whitchurch Stouffville, Uxbridge, Pickering, Scugog, Whitby, Oshawa and Clarington; and

"Whereas the Oak Ridges moraine is the headwater for about 35 rivers and streams flowing south to Lake Ontario and north to Lake Simcoe; and

"Whereas the drinking water for millions of GTA residents, the wetlands, wildlife and natural areas will suffer irreparable damage if industrial, commercial and/or residential development is permitted without protective planning for preservation;

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

"That the government of Ontario will:

"Do everything in its power to ensure the Oak Ridges moraine remains zoned as agricultural and rural;

"Work with the Ontario Municipal Board to ensure conservation of the Oak Ridges moraine;

"Provide a policy statement to enshrine its position."

I am pleased to support and sign this petition.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

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

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

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

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

"Whereas Bill 74 is an unprecedented attack on the collective bargaining rights of Ontario teachers;

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

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

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

This petition has been signed literally by dozens and dozens and dozens of concerned Ontarians in my riding. I affix my signature in full agreement with their concerns.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I continue to receive petitions organized by Cecil Mackasey and Rick Roberts of CAW Local 222 and forwarded to me by Cathy Walker, the national health and safety director for the CAW. The petition reads as follows:

"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."

I add my name as I'm in agreement with these petitioners.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

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

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

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

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

"Whereas Bill 74 is an unprecedented attack on the collective bargaining rights of Ontario teachers;

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

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

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

I've also signed this petition in complete agreement.

LORD'S PRAYER

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's always my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Durham. This is just one of many.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer, also called Our Father, has always been used to open the proceedings of municipal chambers and the Ontario Legislative Assembly since the beginning of Upper Canada in the 18th century; and

"Whereas such use of the Lord's Prayer is part of Ontario's long-standing heritage and tradition that continues to play a significant role in contemporary Ontario life;

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer is a most meaningful expression of the religious convictions of many Ontario citizens;

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

"That the Parliament of Ontario maintain the use of the Lord's Prayer in its proceedings in accordance with its long-standing, established custom and do all in its power to maintain use of this prayer in municipal chambers in Ontario."

I'm pleased to support and sign this petition on behalf of my constituents in Durham.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I again have thousands of signatures on petitions from all across the riding of Algoma-Manitoulin.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree, and I sign this petition on behalf of those thousands of signatories.

LORD'S PRAYER

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased today to be able to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads as follows:

"Whereas the prayer, Our Father, also called the Lord's Prayer, has always been used to open the proceedings of municipal chambers and the Ontario Legislative Assembly since the beginning of Upper Canada under Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe in the 18th century; and

"Whereas such use of the Lord's Prayer is part of Ontario's long-standing heritage and a tradition that continues to play a significant role in contemporary Ontario life;

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

"That the Parliament of Ontario maintain the use of the Lord's Prayer in its proceedings, in accordance with its long-standing established custom."

I support the petition and affix my signature.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): There are many people in Beardmore, Longlac, Nakina and Leduc township who are very unhappy about the amalgamation of Greenstone. I have petitions here from the township of Nakina.

"Whereas the corporation of the township of Nakina is an incorporated municipality; and

"Whereas the corporation of the township of Nakina has continued to operate as a community in its own right since 1923; and

"Whereas amalgamation with other distant communities could prove to be detrimental to the individualistic lifestyle associated with living in the township of Nakina; and

"Whereas the economic justification for the creation of Greenstone no longer exists, and its creation may result in a loss of local services and an increased tax burden on the residents of Nakina; and

"Whereas the residents of the township of Nakina would like to continue to be the municipality known as the corporation of the township of Nakina;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to ensure that the corporation of the township of Nakina continues to be a separate municipality in the province of Ontario."

Virtually everyone in the community of Nakina has signed these petitions, and I'm proud to add my name.

KARLA HOMOLKA

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Mr Speaker, you may have noticed that earlier today I was sort of thwarted from making a statement or question, so I'm making up for it. A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo were responsible for terrorizing entire communities in southern Ontario; and

"Whereas the Ontario government of the day made a deal with the devil with Karla Homolka resulting in a sentence that does not truly make her pay for her crimes; and

"Whereas our communities have not yet fully recovered from the trauma and sadness caused by Karla Homolka; and

"Whereas Karla Homolka believes that she should be entitled to passes to leave prison with an escort; and

"Whereas the people of Ontario believe that criminals should be forced to serve sentences that reflect the seriousness of their crimes;

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

"That the government of Ontario will:

"Do everything within its power to ensure that Karla Homolka serves her full sentence;

"Continue to reform parole and make it more difficult for serious offenders to return to our streets;

"Fight the federal government's plan to release up to 1,600 more convicted criminals on to Ontario streets; and

"Ensure that the Ontario government's sex offender registry is functioning as quickly as possible."

I present this on behalf of Marilyn Mushinski, MPP for Scarborough Centre, in her absence.

DELAYED START OF SCHOOL

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

"Whereas for 1998 and 1999, a delayed start program, developed by community councils with input from students, had been accepted and successfully implemented for the schools of Glendale High School, Norwich District High School, and East Elgin Secondary School; and

"Whereas to this date there has not been resolve to this issue for September 2000, we hereby petition the Legislative Assembly to provide leadership and resolve for this very important local issue;

"Whereas this plan has, for two years, proved itself to be irrefutably beneficial to the students of these schools and developed with their best interests in mind;

"With the full support of all parties concerned, we, the undersigned students of the schools who will be affected by this decision, support the continuation of the late-start program as it has existed."

It's signed by a number of residents from Tillsonburg and Otterville, and I affix my signature to it.

LORD'S PRAYER

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads as follows:

"Whereas the prayer, Our Father, also called the Lord's Prayer, has always been used to open the proceedings of municipal chambers and the Ontario Legislative Assembly since the beginning of Upper Canada under Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe in the 18th century; and

"Whereas such use of the Lord's Prayer is part of Ontario's long-standing heritage and a tradition that continues to play a significant role in contemporary Ontario life;

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

"That the Parliament of Ontario maintain the use of the Lord's Prayer in its proceedings, in accordance with its long-standing established custom."

I support the petition and affix my signature.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): I have a petition from teachers and members of town council:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

"Whereas Bill 74 is an unprecedented attack on the collective bargaining rights of Ontario's teachers;

"Whereas Bill 74 attacks our human rights by demanding teachers be available seven days a week, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to do assigned duties; and

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

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

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

I affix my signature on this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BRIAN'S LAW (MENTAL HEALTH LEGISLATIVE REFORM), 2000 / LOI BRIAN DE 2000 SUR LA RÉFORME LÉGISLATIVE CONCERNANT LA SANTÉ MENTALE

Resuming the debate adjourned on June 5, 2000, on the motion for second reading of Bill 68,

An Act, in memory of Brian Smith, to amend the Mental Health Act and the Health Care Consent Act, 1996 / Projet de loi 68, Loi à la mémoire de Brian Smith modifiant la

Loi sur la santé mentale et la Loi de 1996 sur le consentement aux soins de santé.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Tony Martin): To resume the debate on Bill 68, the member from Thunder Bay-Atikokan.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I'm pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this debate on Bill 68,

An Act, in memory of Brian Smith, to amend the Mental Health Act and the Health Care Consent Act.

I expect I will be voting in support of this bill on second reading. I'll be doing so in recognition of the anguish of families who have had a sense of being helpless in being able to get treatment for loved ones who are unable to act on their own behalf. I'll be doing so in respect of the work of my colleague Mr Richard Patten, who has brought forward two private member's bills out of concern for this issue.

Interjection.

Mrs McLeod: The member opposite corrects me-three private member's bills in respect of his concern for this issue. And I will be doing so also in response to the recommendations of at least six inquests into deaths of people that involved mental illness among those who were not receiving treatment. I believe, however, that it's important to note that these inquests are not all into homicides. They also involve suicide within mental health facilities, death as a result of restraint within mental health facilities and death as a result of conflict with the law.

Regardless of the reason for the death, the issues addressed in this legislation have been a focus of concern in these inquests. Five of the inquests have dealt with confusion around the term "imminent danger"; four have addressed the potential benefits of community treatment orders.

I want to note a concern with the relative speed with which this has proceeded, although given the standard of speed we are observing with Bill 74, which is currently before the House, it's hard to speak about this bill as having been rushed through. But I do want to recognize that the first consultation was for two weeks, by invitation only, and that we have had relatively little time for public hearings. The notice was one which made presenters somewhat rushed in their presentations. Never theless, we have had extensive public hearings in terms of presentations that have been made on all sides of the issue-people supportive of the bill and people with very real concerns about the bill.

There is a different process being followed here, and I want to acknowledge that, because I think it sets an important precedent. The precedent is not only that we have had public hearings, but that we've had those public hearings prior to second reading of the bill, so that as we approach this second reading debate we have had the benefit of the input of all those presentations on all sides of the issues that are contained in this legislation. I trust that as a result of that new process there will be a genuine willingness to look at amendments to this bill that will reflect the concerns that have been presented to the committee.

I have to say that my greatest concern about the legislation, and I will address in the time I have some of my specific concerns with the bill, is that this legislation is coming forward in the context of the total inadequacy of mental health resources that are available to those needing help. I believe it is legitimate to question, as many have, why this bill is coming forward when those supports are not in place.

The Schizophrenia Society of Ontario, which is very supportive of the bill, suggested the reason the bill is coming first is that it will provide a basis for holding government accountable to provide those services and supports that are needed to make the legislation effective in actually improving treatment for those with mental illness. Selina Volpatti of the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario said: "The legislation must come first and that gives us a basis to advocate on behalf of our relatives for the services that really should be there."

Because that is the intent of those who are the strongest supporters of this bill, that it become a basis for holding government accountable to provide the supports, we've proposed that there be an amendment, that the parts of the bill that deal with community treatment should not be proclaimed until there is a clear implementation plan to put those community supports in place.

It seems to me there should be little surprise that we've heard skepticism during the committee hearings about the commitment of government, and I would say any government, to put a truly integrated, comprehensive system for treating mental illness in place, because this issue of mental health reform has been studied and discussed for years. There have been so many studies, there have been so many good intentions outlined over recent years-I go back to 1988 when a Liberal government brought forward the Graham report and outlined its plan to move towards an integrated mental health system.

We could go to 1993, when the New Democrats came out with a 10-year plan, Putting People First, with an emphasis on enabling people with mental health problems to remain within the community. We then go to the 2000 and Beyond study that was brought forward by the then parliamentary assistant, Mr Newman, in 1998 on the progress of reform but with some very important recommendations. I want to note them.

The recommendations of this government's report on strengthening Ontario's mental health system said, "The government must demonstrate its commitment to mental health reform by creating an integrated and coordinated system of mental health services in Toronto," that the government "should ensure dedicated funding for the mental health system," that they "should immediately establish a program design team to be responsible for developing a province-wide implementation strategy"-important, necessary recommendations.

One of the last recommendations, in fact the last recommendation, was that "government begin a review of the Mental Health Act." Unfortunately the only recommendation that has been acted on is that last one, which is why we have before us the changes to the Mental Health Act.

Making it Happen was a 1999 implementation strategy from the Ministry of Health with an outline of what a truly well-resourced mental health system would look like. We have the ministry's strategic plan, we have the HSRC's direction on mental health, we have Michael Bay's public education program on the current Mental Health Act, but the bottom line is that we are now seven years into a governmental commitment to mental health reform and we're five years into this government's term. We've had time enough not only to bring in legislation but also to make significant improvements to mental health supports that are available in communities.

What have we actually seen in terms of proposals for change? We have the recommendations of the Health Services Restructuring Commission that six of nine psychiatric hospitals in this province will close, with 1,135 beds to be lost.

We've had some funding for ACT teams, which are an important part of implementing the community programs, but according to Dr Musgrave, the psychiatrist who assists the ministry in the development of the community treatment and ACTT program, we only have one-third of the number of ACT teams that are needed.

The issue of homelessness has not been addressed. There are estimates of 5,000 homeless or under-housed individuals with mental illness in Toronto. Niagara region will need almost 1,000 places by 2007. The Royal Ottawa Hospital spoke to the fact that in Ottawa the emergency shelters are overcrowded but they have no choice but to take in the homeless, many of whom are suffering with mental illness, and give them a mattress on the floor. It is a tragedy that these individuals are not receiving the treatment that they need, but it is not enough, I suggest, to provide treatment in the absence of a place to live.

The No Force Coalition spoke very passionately to this issue when they said the Mental Health Act functions adequately to protect people who become very ill, yet it is no substitute for the care and support some people need on an ongoing basis, and that includes competent and caring community-based mental health care, decent housing, mental and emotional health supports and enough money to live on.

We know that there is a housing initiative put forward by the current government, $45 million over three years. We know that in year one that was to bring 1,000 units to Hamilton, Toronto and Ottawa. It is a start, but given what the committee heard about the need, it is clearly not enough.

We heard during the committee hearings about the lack of community supports. We heard that in Ottawa there's a two-and-a-half-year wait for case management services. Although the goal of the government is to move to 60% of the funding for mental health being focused on community programs, in Ottawa 80% of the funding is still on the institutional side.

We heard that in Niagara they are short of case managers and that there is no 24-hour crisis care.

We heard about the shortage of psychiatrists in many parts of the province, including my own home community of Thunder Bay.

During the course of the committee hearings, we had the benefit of receiving the atlas report, the study on access to mental health services in the province, and it said that 50% to 75% of people who could benefit from mental health services do not even seek help.

During the course of our committee hearings we heard about the lack of funding for mental health. The Ontario Federation of Community Mental Health and Addiction Programs tells us that the base budgets of 335 agencies have not increased in 10 years and that there were budget cuts twice in that period. The community mental health and addiction program says that funding is one fifth of what is needed.

There was a 1991 study that said $600 million was needed for mental health. Only $150 million has been invested. The Toronto Star suggested that $30 million of that is a shift of addiction services from ComSoc into health, so it's not new money, and that supportive housing is another chunk moved into health.

In June 1999, we saw that the CMHA said that of the $60 million that was announced that previous April, only $26 million was actually annual funding and the rest is one-time transitional and capital. The CMHA tells us that $325 million is needed in community care just to deal with the transition from institutional care to the community. We know that the Minister of Health-and I acknowledge not only her presence in the Legislature today but the fact that she's made a commitment that there will be no closures of psychiatric hospital beds until the community supports are in place.

But the question that derives from that is, at what level of support in the community? The implementation teams to make the transition from the psychiatric hospitals that are to close to community care are just now being put in place. They've been told to begin divestment and to provide advice "within the limits of the ministry restructuring resources." We know the Health Services Restructuring Commission has said that you need $63 million to $87 million just to replace the beds that will be closed.

But the ministry and the public accounts committee said their estimate was that it would be $48 million, already half of what the government's own commission said was needed. The ministry has said it's not a cost-saving exercise to close psychiatric hospital beds, but it's already short-changing the replacement costs.

And unbelievably, as we have before us significant changes to the Mental Health Act and significant concerns among many people who provide services to those with mental illness that there are not sufficient community supports and treatment options in place, there was absolutely no new money in this year's budget to support mental health.

I have concerns because I look at last year's auditor's report where the auditor noted the lack of progress towards the goals of mental health care reform. He said that research projects that are supposed to determine the costs of community care compared to institutional care are just beginning to tell us what dollars are needed. The auditor said the ministry should define acceptable levels of care and establish performance benchmarks and outcome measures.

I acknowledge there are levels of care outlined in Ministry of Health documents describing the needs, but with no delivery benchmarks and no standards of care, absolutely nothing by which the government's performance in providing care can be measured. I believe it's essential that there be benchmarks, accountability standards, to which this government can be held before the changes to the Mental Health Act are made. So we have proposed amendments to the act to require that standards of care be part of any community treatment plan.

The purpose of this bill is to broaden the criteria by which treatment can be provided involuntarily. Let's recognize the fact that this is about involuntary commitment. The intention is to address the needs of a very small group of people who cannot access treatment either in hospital or in the community because of their illness. Currently, you have to be in a state of imminent danger to yourself or to others before care can be imposed through involuntary commitment to hospital.

The legislation attempts to move the grounds for getting people into treatment from dangerousness into a concern for care. I believe that's one of the strengths of this legislation. It does this in two ways. It does it by broadening the grounds for involuntary commitment to hospital, and there are concerns around that and it's one of the significant issues that has to be addressed. I think that issue gets somewhat lost because we pay so much attention to something which is a new concept to Ontario, the other way of having involuntary treatment, and that is through a community treatment order.

The purpose of that CTO, to use the term, is to provide support and treatment for people with mental illness who are caught in what is often called the revolving door syndrome: people who have been hospitalized and responded well to treatment but who can't sustain that treatment on their release from hospital. The purpose of the CTO is to get these individuals into care so that you can prevent deterioration and restore ability to function, to return to life, as many individuals said to our committee.

I believe, as I'm sure my colleague has pointed out in his participation in this debate, that they shouldn't be called community treatment orders; they should be called agreements. The legislation does recognize that there must be consent to a community treatment plan, whether of the individual or of the substitute decision-maker. It's important to recognize that this bill is not-and I don't believe it is intended to be on the part of the government in presenting it-about imposing treatment on people who are capable of making decisions and who refuse to be treated.

There are many concerns-and I want to acknowledge those-about imposing coercive care in any circumstance at all. But I do want to set that aside for a moment and recognize that, for me at least, an even greater concern is that under legislation the community treatment plans can only be provided-and certainly they can only work-if there is adequate treatment and support available in the community.

The Royal Ottawa Hospital said to our committee that the proposed legislative reform will be ineffective if patients are not adequately treated and monitored. It's equally true that the broadened criteria for admission to hospital can only be put into effect if there are beds. The Ontario Medical Association believes that community treatment orders will relieve the need for beds.

Some studies-and I want to acknowledge this-of the effectiveness of community treatment orders indicate that there can be a reduction in hospitalization, and that obviously is the goal of the community treatment organization, to keep people out of hospital. However, the community hospital psychiatrists believe that the broadened criteria for commitment are going to significantly increase pressures that they can't meet now. The Ontario Hospital Association shares that concern.

The CMHA is concerned as well that there won't be an adequate number of mental health beds when the restructuring and the closure of the psychiatric hospital takes place.

I have a personal concern coming from northwestern Ontario, because I live in a region where the psychiatric hospital is scheduled to close. I'm aware of the plans that are in place right now, and I see no plan to provide a type of bed in the entire region of northwestern Ontario that will be suitable for the admission of somebody who cannot be supported in the community and who needs a longer-term stay in a hospital bed.

In northwestern Ontario we will have a forensic unit for those who are involved in the criminal justice system; we will have long-term psychogeriatric beds that, even if they are intended to be for long-term non-senior population, are going to be contained in what is a chronic hospital, primarily serving the needs of seniors; and we will have acute beds in our acute care hospital. None of those, I am told, are really suitable for a three- to five-month stay, which may be necessary for those who need treatment in a hospital facility.

I am particularly concerned if this legislation, because it comes first, should be used as an excuse to do nothing more on mental health reform. I would be extremely concerned if the government were to say: "We've done mental health. We don't need to look at it any longer." But I do also believe that this legislation could be a means of showing where the gaps are, and if it's used in that way, it could represent a significant advance in a focus on real mental health reform.

Dr Julio Arboleda - Flórez, who is head of psychiatry at Queen's University, said that the very passage of this legislation will provide an obligation on the government. I believe it's an obligation that this House must hold the government to. If there's a certain irony in the legislation, it's because in providing for community treatment plans, the legislation could actually be largely unused, if it's used properly. It could be unused because positive supports are already available in the community.

If the positive support, the proactive outreach to those with mental illness, is in place, we're not likely to need involuntary admission and CTOs as often, and that would be a positive reason to see this legislation relatively unused.

But this legislation may also be unused because there is not community support for community treatment orders. We repeat, in the legislation it's very clear that you cannot provide a community treatment plan unless the support is available in the community. If this legislation is unused because there aren't community supports, that's a very negative reason. We've seen that in other jurisdictions community treatment orders are indeed used very sparingly. In New Brunswick, for example, there were 63 in three years.

I believe there is a need to have a review built in, that at the end of two years-and we've proposed amendments in this regard-we need to have a review of the use of the community treatment orders; we also need to know why they have either been used or why they have been unused, so we'll be able to determine whether community treatment orders are not being put in place because in fact there are not community supports in place. We'll want to have a review of the effectiveness of the use of community treatment orders: Have they indeed been able to provide the support people need? Have they indeed been able to reduce the necessity of hospitalization?

I would also argue very strongly that the review of this legislation in two years' time consider the effect of this legislation on the wait times for people who are not under community treatment orders to access care. Because there is a great deal of concern, given the inadequacy of our resources for mental health, for providing treatment for those with mental illness, that people are going to be bumped in order to provide priority care to those who are on an involuntary commitment order.

I have a number of concerns about the details of the bill, and I'm sure my colleagues are going to speak to those as well, so I'm not going to deal at length with them. We have proposed amendments to make changes in the definition of "mental disorder," which in the current instance has not been proposed to change from the current act and which continues to be very broad. We would very strongly recommend that the legislation be amended with the definition proposed by the Ontario Medical Association and supported as well by the Ontario Hospital Association and the Ontario Psychiatric Association.

The amendment would then change the definition of mental disorder to mean, "a disorder of thought, perception, feelings or behaviour that seriously impairs a person's judgment, capacity to recognize reality, ability to associate with others, or ability to meet the ordinary demands of life in respect of which treatment is advisable."

Given the fact that this current legislation deals with people who clearly have serious mental illness, we believe that amendment and that change in definition is needed.

We also believe, and we've proposed a

preamble to do this, that there needs to be a clear definition of the target population that can be helped by community treatment order. We have proposed as well a number of amendments to deal with some of the unanswered questions about the use of community treatment orders. For example, one of the concerns for a great many presenters to the committee was that because this is involuntary commitment, whether to hospital or to community treatment, the use of force may be a real concern.

Even though a consent is required, there was a concern that the consent by a substitute decision-maker out of concern for the well-being of their loved one could be to the use of force to require compliance with, for example, taking medication.

We've been assured that there is no intention here to enforce compliance with community treatment orders through the use of force, but there was some disagreement in the testimony about what might be needed for compliance, and real questions about how you enforce compliance without the use of force. The images for people presenting to the committee of the use of force were very real and very frightening: the images of people being physically restrained while medications are being administered, the images of people being forced up against a wall to require them to comply.

Again, we're assured that is not the intent of this legislation, but to reassure people who are genuinely concerned about this, there should be an amendment in this legislation that prohibits the use of physical or chemical restraints in any community setting.

I also want to note that the clearest consequence for non-compliance with a community treatment order would be the threat of readmission. Clearly that's coercive, and I recognize that. I also think we can't assume that you can admit a patient for non-compliance, because there is going to be a shortage of beds. Dr Russel Fleming, the psychiatrist-in-chief at Mental Health Centre Penetanguishene, made the point that in-patient programs are already routinely over capacity.

The most compelling evidence of the way that compliance would be enforced and why a community treatment order would be important to an individual, in my view, came from Selina Volpatti of the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario. I want to quote what she said, because she spoke to the essence of why this legislation can be supported, even with the concerns we have.

She said: "I see the community treatment order working in such a way as if that person-let's say when he's just released from hospital, he's going to report to his team once every three days, and if he doesn't report, they're going to have to look for him and make sure that he has taken his medication. If not, he is going to be brought back into hospital. But when he's brought back in that way, he is not going to have deteriorated to the degree he would have deteriorated if he'd been left out in the street for 30 days or 60 days."

If that's the compelling reason to support the legislation, I also want to acknowledge the concerns that were expressed to our committee about the lack of trust. From the psychiatric survivors group in Ottawa: "Community treatment orders will undo a lot of trust that's been built up over the years between patients and their caregivers, be that ACT team members or case managers. Trust is a large issue for people who feel vulnerable."

From the St Michael's Hospital mental health service, again in Ottawa: "We are gravely concerned that this legislation will compromise the patient-physician relationship and make it a coercive one as opposed to one based on mutual trust and care. The population this legislation is attempting to address is of the most ill and marginalized of all. This legislation, as we see it, will only further drive these people away from receiving the care that they require."

It would be a tragedy if that was the outcome of this legislation and we can only trust that in its implementation it is used properly and as intended and that we provide safeguards to ensure that it's used properly and as intended so we don't have that further erosion of trust.

I want to recognize that the criteria that have been put in place in the legislation for community treatment orders are stringent, as they must be, and I won't take the time to read them into the record; I'm sure that's been done already during the debate.

I want to acknowledge, and I think this is an issue that has to be dealt with through amendment, that the stringency of the criteria raises some questions about the onus, the liability, of the people who are responsible for implementing this legislation, whether it's the physician who has to have assurance that supports are in place to provide the treatment ordered, whether it's the person responsible for releasing someone who might indeed be dangerous to self or others.

That was certainly a concern for hospitals and there is a very real concern about protection of the family and the substitute decision-maker for liability.

I want to express my concern about the danger, if this legislation is all there is, that the only available treatment could be medication, that the community treatment plan could end up being only about medication. It's not what the legislation says it should be, but in the absence of community supports, if it becomes only about medication, then this bill ends up being solely about the enforcing of taking of medication.

I want to again quote the Ottawa psychiatric survivors group, who said: "It is not true that if people `just took their medications' all would be well. Pills will not cure poverty, dysfunctional families, homelessness or loneliness. At best they should be only one part of a treatment plan, at worst, they can be devastating."

They make the case very strongly and very passionately for why there must be comprehensive community mental health support for this legislation to be effective.

Time is passing when you have half an hour to speak to a bill as extensive as this and I'm therefore not going to spend time on

section 17, although it is a concern, about the change in the way in which police officers will have grounds for apprehension, other than to recognize that while I support the notion of reasonable and probable grounds, because I understand why it's been a problem that you're not always able to observe somebody in the bizarre behaviour that would warrant concern, that kind of discretion has to be exercised very, very carefully. We have in our amendments proposed greater safeguards to prevent the misuse of involuntary apprehension and admission through greater access to rights advice.

I also note my ongoing concern about the fact that when it says the police can take people to an appropriate place to see a physician, there often is not an appropriate place, which is why so many people are being picked up off the streets and put in jail, whether overnight or for longer. That is not an appropriate place.

I think that we criminalize the mentally ill by putting them in jail when there's no place else to take them, but I recognize that we also criminalize them when we allow someone to deteriorate to a point where a crime is committed or a family is forced to lay charges to get a loved one into care. I do believe that, used properly, this legislation can be a step towards providing support for people in the health system rather than in the justice system.

In the three minutes left I want to touch on the history of deinstitutionalization in this province and why I think it's the reason there is an understandable skepticism about how well and how properly this legislation will be used. It was back in the late 1970s when we last had a major deinstitutionali