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

October 1, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-Oct-01 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 1 October 2001 Lundi 1 er octobre 2001

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH

ISLAMIC EDUCATION

AND COMMUNITY CENTRE

HAMILTON-WENTWORTH

DETENTION CENTRE

ONTARIO AGRICULTURE WEEK

ONTARIO FARM INCOME

DISASTER PROGRAM

ANTI-RACISM ACTIVITIES

BRAMPTON EXCELSIORS

LACROSSE TEAM

FIRE PREVENTION WEEK

NORTHUMBERLAND

TOASTMASTERS CLUB

ANNUAL REPORT, ENVIRONMENTAL

COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO

VISITOR

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HEALTH PROTECTION AND PROMOTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA PROTECTION ET LA PROMOTION

DE LA SANTÉ

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

INTERNATIONAL DAY

OF OLDER PERSONS

JOHN LANE

CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

EDUCATION

ONTARIO ECONOMY

TOURISM

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

YOUNG OFFENDERS

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

HAZARDOUS WASTE

CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

ITER FUSION PROJECT

ONTARIO DISABILITY

SUPPORT PROGRAM

PETITIONS

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

PROTECTION OF MINORS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

OHIP SERVICES

PROTECTION OF MINORS

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

OHIP SERVICES

PROTECTION OF MINORS

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

PERSONAL NEEDS ALLOWANCE

PROTECTION OF MINORS

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

IMPROVING CUSTOMER SERVICE

FOR ROAD USERS ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION

DES SERVICES À LA CLIENTÈLE

OFFERTS AUX USAGERS DE LA ROUTE

Monday 1 October 2001 Lundi 1 er octobre 2001

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): I rise in the House today to recognize the 10th anniversary of Women's History Month. We celebrate

women in October because women were recognized as persons under Canadian law in October 1929.

This year's theme recognizes women in their role as volunteers. Seventy-five per cent of women participate in formal volunteer activity. It is these volunteer

activities in schools, hospitals, nursing homes and community centres that enrich the communities of Ontario.

Great strides have been made by women in achieving a better gender balance, but there is still more work to be done. Regardless of a woman's skills, knowledge

and ability, the after-tax income of women is still a shocking 63% of that of men. Not surprisingly, poverty is still a major issue for women, especially for single mothers and senior citizens.

The Harris government has failed in its policies to recognize that women, while also working outside the home, are the primary caregivers to their children and

elderly relatives. Women still perform the lion's share of the work of the home. Studies have shown that this trend is continuing, with young girls still completing more chores than their

brothers.

This government should do more to ensure that government policies do not have a negative gender bias. Many of this government's initiatives, which include cuts

to health care, education and social services, have a direct impact on the lives of women in the province. These cuts tip the gender imbalance and erode the quality of life of women and families in

Ontario.

Let us all take the time to recognize the contributions of women this month, and of all volunteers in this province. However, let us not lose sight of the fact

that there's still more work to be done to bring full equality to the women in this province.

ISLAMIC EDUCATION

AND COMMUNITY CENTRE

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): I had the pleasure yesterday afternoon to attend the celebration of the groundbreaking ceremony of the new

Islamic education and community centre in my beautiful riding of Thornhill. The children of the Al Saddiq Islamic private school kicked off the celebration with the singing of O Canada and

performed Arabic poetry and songs of peace. The expression of happiness in the faces of the children and the many families who belong to the Shia Muslim community was a joy to behold. Many youth

speakers expressed their enthusiasm and that this day for them was like a dream come true.

The event was also attended by the Honourable Hilary Weston, who took

part in the official groundbreaking with Brother Rajani, the president of the Ishna Asheri

Jammaat of Toronto. It was a happy day for the Shia Muslim community, and many members of different faiths also attended to show their support.

This centre will open next to the Yashiva, a Jewish theology college, a sign of the great diversity and understanding that exist in our province of Ontario and

in Thornhill.

It was truly a pleasure to be part of a very special day in the Shia Muslim community. Not only was it the groundbreaking but also a celebration of the

anniversary of their Imam Ali.

I wish the community all the success in the next phase of goal in completing the centre.

HAMILTON-WENTWORTH

DETENTION CENTRE

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): On Friday, September 28, inmates at the Barton Street jail in Hamilton rioted after being caught in the act

of drug smuggling. We would have had a potentially explosive situation here, had it not been for the great work of the guards and the city of Hamilton police to quell this.

I've warned this government and I've warned this minister that there is a powder keg ready to explode at the Hamilton detention centre. We have understaffing, we

have a problem with security, we have a problem with the fact that this government has blindly cut all programs and support to inmates in this facility, which holds people who are in there for

break and enter, to people who are in there on murder charges. We have a dangerous mix.

I ask this government today to undertake a full security audit of the Hamilton detention facility to ensure the staffing level is there to meet the needs, to

ensure that the guards lives are not in danger because of cuts by this government, to ensure safety precautions are in place and to ensure that some of the barbaric program cuts made by this

government, which make it a very explosive, tension-filled, dangerous situation, are reviewed.

We cannot allow a situation to continue where you have overcrowding in a jail, where you put guards' lives at risk because you are totally obsessed with

continuing to cut costs in our facilities. You talk the talk, but you do not protect the guards and the communities that host these jails. Minister, I don't want to be standing here again in a much

more dangerous situation which may occur in the future if you don't act. You've been warned. This is one situation that could have been avoided. I ask today that you take the necessary steps to

ensure this will not become a more tragic, more difficult situation at that facility in the future.

ONTARIO AGRICULTURE WEEK

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I'm pleased to rise in the Legislature today to proclaim that this is Ontario Agriculture Week, 2001. This

morning, I officially launched the fourth annual Ontario Agriculture Week here in beautiful downtown Toronto with the help of my colleague, Brian Coburn, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural

Affairs; Bill Mailloux, vice-president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture; Bob Bedggood, president of the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario; and leaders of many of Ontario's commodity

groups as well as farmers.

I'd like to thank the many members from all parties who joined us this morning. I trust you enjoyed the Ontario-grown and Ontario-produced feast.

Agriculture Week is an opportunity to recognize Ontario's farmers and the importance of our agri-food industry.

I was born and raised on a farm. The hard work and dedication of my parents when raising our family was truly an example of what makes the farmers of Ontario

great. The strength of our province depends upon farmers, and I'm proud to be the representative of some of Ontario's best.

It's important to remember that agriculture injects $25 billion annually into the provincial economy and employs more than 640,000 people. I'd like to thank the

farmers in my riding of Perth-Middlesex and the thousands of other farmers across the province for their contribution to the quality of life of our citizens. This week, take a moment to salute our

agricultural communities and farm families. Invite Ontario home for dinner.

ONTARIO FARM INCOME

DISASTER PROGRAM

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): As we kick off Agriculture Week, unfortunately I have to point out once again the disaster that is the

Ontario farm income disaster program. It is more than a $200-million disaster. I repeatedly warned this ministry of the mismanagement of our largest farm program. The last minister didn't listen,

and I trust the current minister will.

In a time of economic downturn when the government should be proactive, millions of dollars are owed to our farmers. Together with an accountant from Delhi, my

office has been meeting with government officials in Guelph to straighten out dozens of files. The results are earth-shattering.

As of last Friday, 16 farms in Elgin, Norfolk and Brant counties are owed more than a million dollars. A cash cropper in Wilsonville was told he would get

nothing; now he's receiving $56,000. Another in Delhi gets $53,000; Windham Centre, $69,000. An Oakland cash cropper has $14,000 clawed back, only to learn he's eligible for $84,000. The list goes

on and on.

Minister, with a million dollars owing to only 16 farms in three counties, consider the margin for error when calculating the 7,000 applications in the early

program. The consequences are staggering. Last Friday, Ottawa extended the deadline for the 2000 program. Your ministry claims it was taken off guard. This is unacceptable. You must immediately

work, Minister, to clear up this disaster: reopen the 1998 and 1999 files immediately, extend the 2000 deadline, and admit once and for all that this program is an absolute disaster.

ANTI-RACISM ACTIVITIES

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): On Friday, September 28, I joined Alexa McDonough, the leader of the federal New Democratic Party, in a

meeting with leaders of Toronto's Canadian Arab community to discuss the ugly racist attacks members of their community are enduring since the horrible events of September 11. We were joined by Dr

John Asfour, president of the Canadian Arab Federation, and Dr Atif Kubursi, president of the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations and 50 representatives from the Arab community. They talked

eloquently about what our political leaders need to do to reaffirm our fundamental Canadian values after reading the poll that indicates that 50% of Canadians say they favour different treatment

for individuals of Arab origin.

I was barely able to keep the tears from flowing as I observed the pain in the eyes of every person in that room. One man expressed shock that Canadians would

allow such a question to be asked and suggested that there would have been outrage expressed by Canadians had that question been asked about blacks or Jews.

A man spoke about his 12-year-old son named Osama who has been harassed at school. He pleaded with his father to change his name to Michael or some other

Canadian name. This is heartbreaking. My leader, Howard Hampton, has called on the Harris government to do more and I am calling on them today to do more: establish a special hotline that people

can call if they are experiencing discrimination; institute a special OPP unit dedicated to investigate complaints swiftly; reinstitute the anti-racist secretariat; the Minister of Education must

work with the school boards to educate all students about Arab and multiculturalism; counselling for people who have been affected by this terrible racism; and financial assistance to rebuild or

repair mosques and other property damaged by racist attacks.

BRAMPTON EXCELSIORS

LACROSSE TEAM

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): In anticipation of the annual Brampton Sports Hall of Fame dinner tomorrow night, I bring news of another

great moment in Brampton sports history. The Brampton Excelsiors are the longest-running sports franchise in Canadian history. The Excelsiors have enjoyed success as a major lacrosse team since

they began in 1883 and won their first Canadian championship in 1930 when the senior Excelsiors won the Mann Cup.

The Mann Cup is one the oldest and most valuable sports trophies in Canada. The late Sir Donald Mann, builder of the Canadian Northern Railway, first donated

this solid gold cup in 1910 for the annual competition for the senior amateur lacrosse championship in Canada. The Excelsiors beat the defending Mann Cup champions, the Brooklin Redmen, in the

Ontario championship, bringing them to the finals to play the Coquitlam Adanacs. They were tied three games apiece in the final games. The Adanacs scored in the last minute to win the game 10 to

nine, stealing the victory to win their first Mann Cup ever.

I congratulate the Adanacs on their win and also congratulate all of the Excelsiors and their head coach, Terry Sanderson, for getting the team to the

championship. Go Excelsiors. Congratulations once again.

FIRE PREVENTION WEEK

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Yesterday, I attended the kickoff to Fire Prevention Week in my community of Windsor. I was pleased to join

Chief Dave Fields, representatives of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, as well as most of the members of the Windsor Spitfires major junior A hockey team who have contributed

their time and energy to help promote fire safety and fire prevention in our community. There were another 200 or 300 people from our community, and among the other things we recognized were the

heroic efforts, not only on part of firefighters, but on the part of our community who have been recognized over the course of the last year for their efforts in saving the lives of a number of

people who were caught in unfortunate circumstances.

One could not help but be reminded of the heroic efforts of firefighters in the tragedy in New York City. We were reminded yet again in our community of the

daily heroics of firefighters, whether in Windsor or any part of this province, in being ready, being prepared to help, being prepared to risk their lives, put their lives at risk, in the interest

of protecting the public.

On behalf of all of the people in my community, and I know later this week and over the course of the next two weeks we'll be talking more about fire prevention

and safety, I pay tribute to those firefighters who every day risk their lives for the rest of us.

NORTHUMBERLAND

TOASTMASTERS CLUB

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise in the House today to congratulate the new Northumberland Toastmasters Club on their recent charter.

Pauline Carrick was installed as president and has very capably taken on that leadership role.

Toastmasters is an organization that plays an important role in improving the quality of life for its members and the surrounding community. It affords people

the opportunity to build up their self-esteem through public speaking and social engagements. They attract numerous business-oriented individuals who are required to make presentations and public

announcements, as well as residents who simply wish to improve their speaking skills.

Since its start on April 17, 2001, the Northumberland Toastmasters Club has grown to 23 very enthusiastic members. On September 25, 2001, the Northumberland

Toastmasters Club was chartered by the Toastmasters International.

It is important for community leaders in rural areas to establish such organizations as a means of self-improvement and community involvement. Last Tuesday at

their charter I had the opportunity to speak to the Toastmasters Club in Cobourg to congratulate them on their rapid success. I received a warm welcome and enjoyed their kind hospitality.

I encourage all members of the House to visit their local Toastmasters Club and learn more about this worthwhile and very informative organization.

ANNUAL REPORT, ENVIRONMENTAL

COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that today I have laid upon the table the 2000-01 annual report of the Environmental

Commissioner.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Point of order, the Chair of Management Board.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to recognize the presence today in

the members' gallery of Father Mark Curtis, who is known as Canada's Singing Priest. He has raised over $11 million for charities across this country. Mark, welcome.

The Speaker: That is not a point of order, but we welcome our guest.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HEALTH PROTECTION AND PROMOTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA PROTECTION ET LA PROMOTION

DE LA SANTÉ

Mr Dunlop moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 105,

An Act to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act to require the taking of blood samples to protect victims of crime, emergency service workers,

good Samaritans and other persons / Projet de loi 105, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection et la promotion de la santé pour exiger le prélèvement d'échantillons de sang

afin de protéger les victimes d'actes criminels, les travailleurs des services d'urgence, les bons samaritains et d'autres personnes.

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

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): The bill amends the Health Protection and Promotion Act to allow a medical officer of health to make an order

requiring the taking of a blood sample from a person if the officer is of the opinion, on reasonable grounds, that the applicant for the order has come into contact with a bodily substance of the

person as a result of being a victim of crime, providing emergency health care services or emergency first aid or performing a function required by regulation. The order will require a legally

qualified medical practitioner or other qualified person to take the blood sample and deliver it to an analyst. It will also require the analyst to analyze the sample and to make reasonable

attempts to deliver a copy of the results of the analysis to the person from whom the sample was taken and to the person who obtained the order.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c)(

i) the House shall meet from 6:45

pm to 9:30 pm on Monday, October 1, Tuesday, October 2, and Wednesday, October 3, 2001, for the purpose of considering government business.

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 ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1350 to 1355.

The Speaker: Would the members kindly take their seats, please.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Bartolucci, Rick

Beaubien, Marcel

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

DeFaria, Carl

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Gravelle, Michael

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marland, Margaret

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Churley, Marilyn

Hampton, Howard

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 72; the nays are 5.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

INTERNATIONAL DAY

OF OLDER PERSONS

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Citizenship, minister responsible for seniors): This government is fully committed to the safety, security

and best quality of life for Ontario's 1.5 million senior citizens. They deserve to live in dignity, and they will.

We are entering an era in which our seniors population is expanding rapidly. Seniors are expected to outnumber children in this province as early as 15 years

from now. Within the current decade, the number of seniors in Ontario will grow by an estimated 340,000. In the year 2011, when the first baby boomers turn 65, this population will start to grow

even more rapidly.

We want to ensure that seniors can live free from harm, fully participate in their communities, and have their contributions recognized and respected. We want

to ensure that seniors live with dignity and independence and in their own communities as long as possible. We are promoting healthy aging and providing the information that seniors and their

families need to make informed decisions.

This government focuses on matters of concern to seniors, in conjunction with other provincial, territorial and federal ministers responsible for seniors. We

are guided by the five principles agreed to on the part of the FPT national framework on aging. These principles promote the overall health and well-being of our seniors. They are: dignity,

independence, participation, fairness and security.

This government's careful, prudent and common sense approach is reflected in our long-term-care investment plan. Over an eight-year period, we are committed to

increasing our spending on long-term-care services.

In 1997-98, we spent approximately $2.4 billion on long-term-care community and facility services. By the year 2005-06, we will have spent approximately $3.6

billion a year. This is the single biggest investment in health care in Ontario's history and it keeps us well out in front of other provinces in per capita spending on home care services. This

investment plan lets us grow our long-term-care bed supply by 20,000 beds, an increase that exceeds the growth in the 75-plus age group population over the same time period.

This government's strategy also includes a $68.4-million multi-year investment in Ontario's strategy for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias, a plan that

makes Ontario a world leader in caring for people with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias and is easing the burden that caregivers are feeling.

Elder abuse is another unfortunate reality in our society. It is a terrible reality affecting 4% to 10% of Ontario seniors. It could be physical abuse,

emotional abuse, financial abuse or neglect or a combination of all of them. Two years ago, I announced our government would develop a comprehensive strategy to deal with elder abuse and I

announced a round table of experts would help us develop this comprehensive strategy, the first of its kind in Canada.

Earlier this year, I told the Legislature that we will be moving ahead on a multi-faceted strategy that will contain initiatives to address our three elder

abuse principles: better coordination of local community services, training front-line staff in various professions and increasing public awareness of this growing problem.

The recent International Conference on Technology and Aging, held in Toronto from September 12 to 14 and financed by this government, provided an opportunity

to raise awareness of how technology impacts the lives of our seniors. It was a model of collaboration between the public sector, the private sector and grassroots partners working together, along

with seniors themselves, to identify and alleviate barriers and to make technology more senior-friendly.

It is a fact, one we can all relate to, that as we age, we often have to take more medications. For all of us, it becomes vitally important that we understand

how these medications interact. That is why our government is working with the Ontario Pharmacists' Association this year to deliver more than 100 seminars on safe medication use throughout

Ontario. The Ministry of Citizenship is spending $100,000 to cover the cost to deliver these seminars, and I'm pleased to report that the response from seniors has been very positive.

The government is determined to help seniors live independently in their own communities for as long as possible. Being able to safely drive their own cars

plays an important role in maintaining that independence. It is for this reason that the government of Ontario welcomed the opportunity to partner with the CAA in offering Shifting Gears, a driver

refresher course for seniors.

I am particularly proud of an ongoing project that honours the living legacy of those people who have made perhaps the greatest contribution of all, our war

veterans. Phase 3 of the Dominion Institute's Memory Project, to which this government is providing $800,000, will assist over 1,000 veterans to bring living history lessons to thousands of

students across Ontario. Bringing veterans into the classroom with their dynamic, heroic stories will help Ontario's young people gain a better understanding of and respect for the seniors who have

given so much for our benefit and that of future generations.

I am very pleased to announce that today is the International Day of Older Persons, as designated by the United Nations, the 11th anniversary of this important

date. As such, it is fitting that today we reflect on and honour the contributions of seniors around the world and the contribution of Ontario's 1.5 million seniors.

Much of what we enjoy in Ontario today is due to the lifetime of hard work and sacrifices made by these seniors, seniors who fought in past wars for the

freedoms we so cherish. Seniors have built our roads, taught in our schools, led the development of our communities and our province, and they have paved the way for the wonderful prosperity we all

enjoy today. Whether they were born in Canada or moved here from another country, seniors of all cultures and backgrounds have enriched Ontario with their vital and valuable contributions.

Let us also not forget that seniors continue to play an integral role in the growth of our province. As taxpayers, as members of boards and commissions, as

volunteers and as community leaders, they are an example to all of us of what can be achieved. Their contributions are enormous, and they deserve our acknowledgement, our total appreciation and our

deepest respect.

Today gives us a marvellous opportunity to recognize and celebrate the tremendous contributions that seniors have made and continue to make to the quality of

life in our great province.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): It is indeed a privilege and an honour today to participate in the celebration of the International

Day of Older Persons. On behalf of my leader, Dalton McGuinty, and my Liberal colleagues, I want to acknowledge our debt to older persons in this province.

Ontario must be grateful to those who have gone before us, those who have pioneered, those who have built, and those who have entrenched in Ontario our values

and our institutions.

Ontarians should be grateful to our elders who built the farms in our farming communities.

Ontarians should be grateful to those who have built our businesses and our business communities.

Ontarians should be grateful to those who have built and nurtured our schools and built our education community.

Ontarians should be grateful to those who fought for our freedoms and our values in two world wars and countless other peacekeeping opportunities.

Ontarians should be grateful to those who have worked and who have laboured to build this great province. Ontarians should be grateful to those who have

survived depressions and recessions and have gone on to build a greater Ontario.

Ontarians should be grateful to our parents and grandparents for building the strong families that are the fundamental building blocks of this great

province.

We should be grateful that in the International Year of the Volunteer, our older persons continue to be the backbone of volunteerism in this province. Older

persons are the driving force across a myriad of volunteer organizations. From cancer societies to hospital auxiliaries, from Scout troops to Meals on Wheels, from amateur theatre to places of

worship, our volunteerism is supported strongly by those seniors who work so hard volunteering in our various community organizations. Seniors are the core and the backbone of volunteerism in

Ontario.

We need to be grateful to older persons, and we also need to demonstrate that we are grateful to our senior citizens. We need to provide health and community

services so that our seniors can stay in their own homes. The attack on community services and long-term care by this government is unconscionable. I and my colleagues have read into the record

thousands upon thousands of names on petitions decrying the attack on senior citizens and other vulnerable persons in this society who are having their home care services taken away from them or

diminished. The government does not acknowledge that a large part of their CCAC budget is now devoted to acute care because they cut our hospital budgets, they closed our emergency rooms, and what

was designated for long-term care is now being used as acute care in our communities. The government fails to make that differentiation.

If you come to my constituency or any of the constituencies across this province, you will find that there are continual calls to that constituency office

asking that we, as members, do something about providing the care they were getting. In one part of my constituency, for example, two thirds of the nursing visits have been cancelled. The rhetoric

does not indicate that this government is grateful for the contributions seniors have provided.

The second great volume of calls to my office and other members' offices relates to the drug formulary. Medications are being delisted for seniors, for older

persons who need that kind of care, by this government in an increasing attack on those to whom we should be grateful.

If you are going to be grateful to seniors, and I think that is what we're all about in Ontario, we have to not just chatter about it, spin doctor about it; we

have to do something about it. All the rhetoric, all the chatter and all the platitudes will not replace concrete service to the people we should be grateful to.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): It's a pleasure, on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus, to pay tribute to Ontario's seniors today, the

International Day of Older Persons, and it is fitting that in a very public way we salute the enormous contribution they have made to Ontario life. Through many years of work and commitment, they

have built the public institutions like hospitals, like schools, like colleges and universities, which are so important to the quality of life in Ontario. We salute these seniors, and we urge them

to continue to do the important work they do in our communities, providing expertise, providing knowledge, providing support to so many agencies, boards and commissions right across our

communities.

But it would be remiss on my part -- indeed, I think I would be negligent -- if I didn't spend some time today pointing out how recent and not-so-recent

decisions by this government really undermine the quality of life of seniors in our province.

I want to begin with the question of housing. Housing is so important to seniors, because too many of them have a meagre pension to live on, and housing costs

are a critical issue. What has this government done? Well, those many seniors who used to benefit from our not-for-profit housing program have been denied not-for-profit housing units because this

government cancelled the program when they were elected. This government's friends in the private sector are not building decent, safe, affordable housing; they're only interested in building

condominiums. So we have thousands of seniors who need decent, safe and affordable housing and cannot get it because of the decisions of this government.

This was the government that took away rent controls so that so many seniors now are trapped in their current apartments because they can't afford to move

somewhere else or, if they are forced to move somewhere else, they are spending huge portions of their incomes trying to pay for rent. It's no wonder that more seniors than ever before are now at

food banks in the province of Ontario trying to make ends meet.

This is also a government that downloaded housing on to municipalities, and we know municipalities don't have the capital needed to renovate those units, and

there's a great fear those units will be sold off. This government should reinstitute a not-for-profit housing program, bring in real rent controls and stop the downloading of housing on to

municipalities.

This is a government that has recently delisted audiology services. How many seniors in our communities cannot afford to pay for these services? I heard the

Minister of Health last week say, "There's no problem here; just get them to go to their family doctor and get a referral to an ear, nose and throat specialist and that cost will be covered." Maybe

the Minister of Health doesn't know that in northern Ontario right now we already need one ENT specialist in Sault Ste Marie and we need three in Thunder Bay, and we have 32 communities in northern

Ontario that need 117 family doctors. People can't find a family doctor to get a referral to a specialist; and if they could, the specialist isn't there anyway. We need more of them in their

communities.

This is a government that is so busy trying to cut health services on the backs of seniors that they are putting our seniors at risk: those who need hearing

evaluations and those who need hearing aid evaluations. If the government wanted to do something for seniors today, they would reverse the delisting of audiology services.

Another decision by this government: this government has not only frozen the budgets of CCACs; they have in fact cut budgets. CCACs that had deficits last year

had those deficits covered. Now they're expected to operate this year at the approved level they received from the ministry last year. So there are cuts all around.

CCACs, like my own, are having to implement programs where seniors are losing their home care, their homemaking services. People discharged from hospital are

going to wait a long time before they ever get service, and the list goes on and on. In my community alone, we have a deficit of $1.8 million that our CCAC has to cover.

What this government has also done is refuse to provide the equity funding this government promised to many communities in 1998. That's what's happening in my

community. This minister, Minister Cam Jackson, wrote to me in August 1998, and said, "Starting in 2000-01, and in each of the next five years, the Manitoulin-Sudbury CCAC will receive additional

funding based on our equity formula." Minister, they didn't get money in 2000-01, and they didn't get any money this year either, despite your promise. It's no wonder our CCAC cannot fund the home

care needs of people in our community.

If you wanted to do something for seniors in long-term-care facilities, you would reinstitute the minimum 2.5 hours of nursing care that your government cut in

Finally, Minister, if you really wanted to do something, especially since you promised you would do this in 1995 -- a specific promise made by your Premier --

you would bring forward an Ontarians with Disabilities Act to truly protect disabled seniors in the province of Ontario.

JOHN LANE

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): Mr Speaker, I'd like to ask for unanimous consent to say a few words

about the passing of a former member of the Legislature, John Lane.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Sterling: When I came here in 1977, after winning my first election, I first met John Lane, who had been here in the Legislature,

elected as the member for Algoma-Manitoulin since 1971. John was a member here until 1987, when the boundaries were shifted and he decided not to run again. I don't believe John ever ran in an

election he didn't win for the people in his northern community.

One of the memories I have about John is that he always seemed to be working on a problem for a constituent, be it a small town, a small municipality or some

business in his riding. John was known for his diligence in taking care of his constituency problems.

Bill Davis, who, as you know, was a former Premier of our province, at one of the caucus meetings a long time ago singled out John and Ron McNeil as the two

members in the government caucus who most frequently wrote to him about problems in their constituencies. As you know, Ron was here until 1990, having served for about 30 years.

As we have progressed in the Legislature and through a number of elections, this place has become much more volatile in its membership. I would say that

perhaps John Lane was one of those individuals who could have, and did to some degree, overcome that volatility and maintained his status as an MPP in spite of the fact that his party's fortunes

perhaps weren't as good in some elections as in others -- I refer to 1975, when the government went from a majority to a significant minority, and again in 1985, when this party lost some favour

with the electorate.

John was known in his community for seriously taking on legitimate requests of his constituents and doing it in a style and manner which commanded attention

from government ministers and from people who listened to him.

John was a quiet man in many ways. I don't know how often he spoke in this Legislature. But when John did believe in something, he did not hesitate to speak up

among his colleagues in caucus or let a minister know that in fact he was displeased, and that often crossed party lines.

John Lane's hallmark was that he could work with almost anybody in order to overcome an obstacle when he needed some money in his riding to build a bridge or a

highway or a school or whatever it might be.

John was very much a proponent of northern Ontario. He was, I would say, one of the most ardent supporters of the creation of the Ministry of Northern

Development and Mines and became the first parliamentary assistant to that portfolio.

I visited Gore Bay on a couple of occasions. Gore Bay is not really a very large metropolis. Mike Brown, who perhaps will be saying a few words about John, may

be able --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It's bigger than Manotick.

Hon Mr Sterling: I don't think it's bigger than Manotick, with respect.

At any rate, John really felt at home up north. When you visited with him, you could see the command and the respect he had when people came to talk to

him.

What I would say mostly about this man, who in spite of really not having great health when he was here and particularly after he left here, was that he

continued to represent, with really a lot of energy, the interests of his constituents. He had integrity, he was of the old-school political stripe, but he sure got the job done. I know his

constituents, who of course didn't have as much contact with him in recent years when he had failing health, will remember the tremendous contribution he made to his community. John did it with the

utmost integrity, honesty and straightforwardness.

We all could take a lesson from the life of John Lane in the representation of our constituents.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): It's indeed a privilege to speak for Ontario Liberals with regard to my friend John Gordon Lane and

his passing this past summer on August 9.

John was born on Barrie Island. Just to help out my friend across the way, Gore Bay is sort of a suburb of Barrie Island. Barrie Island is a municipality. It's

an actual island just off the edge of Manitoulin, connected by a causeway. I say that because the Lane family, of which John was an important part, came from Barrie Island. His brother Larry became

the mayor of Gore Bay after John. There was a subsequent mayor or two in there, but his brother became the mayor of Gore Bay. His son Ron, who we all know is the sheriff of the great district of

Manitoulin, resides in Gore Bay. So in many ways, many Manitouliners would see Gore Bay as the suburb of Barrie Island.

John was a farmer on Barrie Island. He worked on Barrie Island for quite a number of years until he became associated with Co-operators Insurance. He later

became the district manager for Co-operators Insurance. During all this time, though, he had a strong involvement in community affairs. John was involved in virtually everything that was necessary

to make a small community go. He was involved in the Rotary Club. He was involved in the founding of the Manitoulin Livestock Co-op. He was particularly proud of being involved at the Flower of

Hope school, which he and Renie Noble took a great leadership role in.

So John was a very well-known figure in his community. He was involved on Barrie Island council. Later he was involved on the town council of Gore Bay. He was

then the mayor of Gore Bay. He contested the 1971 general election for the Progressive Conservative Party against some other names that people around here might know: Roger Taylor, the late mayor

of Elliot Lake, and Austin Hunt, the present reeve of my home community, the township of Billings and Allen East. John was the victor and went on to win, I think, five general elections.

John retired in 1987 and I succeeded him in that election. I didn't beat him; I succeeded him. He chose not to run. I believe he was 71 at the time of his

retirement and certainly had provided great service to the people of the riding of Algoma-Manitoulin, which at the time included communities like Elliot Lake, Killarney, Espanola, Spanish and all

the communities on the island of Manitoulin.

John is remembered, as my friend across the way says, as somebody you could go to. If there was a problem, a legitimate problem, John would do his best to have

it fixed. When you went to John Lane, you knew he did his best to do that.

In my time on Gore Bay city council -- city council? town council; the member for Nickel Belt is laughing about that -- I can remember various initiatives of

the community, not just the town council; for example, when the golf course was being built in Gore Bay. We'd made the appropriate Wintario applications. Somehow or other, even though we had met

all the criteria -- I was kind of in charge of the funding -- we were being frustrated by the government not sending their cheque in a reasonable time frame. I can remember John on one occasion

actually going over to finance himself and walking the cheque back from finance so that we could have that and the community could continue.

He had a strong interest in northern affairs. He was one of the members who believed that northern affairs was a necessity and was instrumental in the

foundation of that. I think John always saw himself as somebody who understood that northern Ontario needed the strong representation of a strong Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

John was a friend of mine. I knew John. I guess I came to Manitoulin to live about three years after he was elected, and at a number of social events, both

when he was the member and after, everyone, not just me, would consider John Lane to be their friend and somebody who would do his utmost, regardless of what political stripe you might be, to do

whatever he could to make the community a better place. For example, I was just thinking about this the other day. At one event I was at, John said, "You know, Mike, I've just been out to British

Columbia and I visited with Stan Farquhar." He took the time to visit with his predecessor in British Columbia, Stan Farquhar, who was, by the way, a Liberal. He visited with Stan and Mamie and

reported on Stan's health and was the greatest of friends. I think the wonderful thing about that part of the constituency is that people honour somebody who steps above partisan politics and looks

after the interests of the people he serves. John was certainly one of those people.

I want to give our condolences to wife, Leila; his daughter, Sharon; his son, Ron; his stepdaughter, Linda, and her husband, Max Trick; his stepson Craig

McDougall and his stepson Bob, and all the grandchildren who are involved in that great family. I want to express our sympathies to them. We have lost a great friend and the community of Ontario

has suffered a great loss in the loss of John Lane.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I appreciate the opportunity on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus to remember John Lane.

I wish that I could be in a position to recount some personal stories about John Lane, but he was retiring in 1987 at the same time that I was elected. It is

true that he was a sitting member in this Legislature when I was a legislative page at the age of 14, but that's too far back for me to remember now too. Frankly, as I recall, the night sittings at

that time were pretty raucous and pretty loud and I don't really remember some specific interventions by that particular member from that time, so I had to resort to calling a former member who was

here with John Lane, and he gave me some information to share with you.

My father was here the whole time that John Lane was here, which was some 16 years. He sat almost directly across from John Lane, and were we here under

different circumstances, I would actually be giving my condolences to John Lane for having to sit across from Elie for those many years. I think that would have been trying indeed. But he did say a

couple of things.

Firstly, John Lane could be a very fierce and vocal defender of government policy. On those occasions, though, when he believed the government was wrong, he

was sensitive and sensible enough to lobby for some change.

When my father was Comsoc critic, there were some very heated exchanges in this Legislature about the adequacy -- or inadequacy, obviously, from the point of

view of my dad -- about the level of that benefit. John Lane, however, on many occasions in this House intervened and said that the benefit level was in fact adequate. However, when a family member

who was blind found that it was not so easy to live on Comsoc's disability benefit, John Lane told my father that there was some truth with respect to what he had said, and he proceeded from that

point on to lobby internally to try and get that benefit level raised, obviously not only for his family member but for other people in Ontario who were or who became disabled. My father very much

appreciated that about him.

Secondly, he was an advocate for his constituents and he would take on government ministries when necessary if he thought his own cabinet was wrong. He was

also very clever to engage opposition politicians in his fight so that they could do the upfront work in question period to raise these issues on his behalf.

There was a particular incident that involved a number of high school students from Killarney whose parents came to see John Lane because at that time they

were travelling at least 50 miles, one way, from Killarney to Sudbury to go to high school. The parents proposed that the students should go to high school in Espanola, which would have been a

one-way trip of about 14 miles. The dilemma was that in order to do that, they would have to access Killarney Provincial Park -- there were some very serious restrictions about development in the

park -- and a causeway would also have to be built to provide a link to Espanola.

So John Lane came to see my father. They talked about the students, they talked about how difficult it would be to travel that far, and they decided that my

father would do the upfront work, asking questions in the Legislature of the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of the Environment, and the two of them together would also go lobby the

same ministers for change, which they did. It was unfortunate, for a number of reasons which I won't go into, that the causeway link was in fact never built. I won't attribute that to either of the

two who were involved in that debate, but I do want to point out that in this case, the kids came first. John was very concerned about that, wanted that road built despite concerns that were going

to come from the environmentalists, and really did try to make that happen.

John also realized that all politics are local and he was very successful over the years in getting things in his riding that would assure his election win. He

was particularly adept at getting blacktop for most of the roads in Manitoulin, side roads included. In fact, he was so adept at achieving this that my father got to calling him Four-Lane John, and

he used to kid him that there was so much blacktop on the island that the island was in danger of sinking. But not only did my father kid him; John Lane recognized how important that was, because

in more than one election campaign his signs read "Vote 4 Lane."

He also very much understood the north, and previous speakers have talked about the contribution he made when the bill dealing with the creation of the

Ministry of Northern Affairs was debated. It is true that he was very influential during the course of that debate, in a public way and behind the scenes, and, with other opposition members, made

sure that that important ministry was created. He recognized, as did other members from northern Ontario, that there are differences in the north, that there are special economic and social

concerns that have to be dealt with. It was very important to him that a ministry specifically concerned with the needs of northern Ontario be created, and it was. I must say that during the time

in our government I was a beneficiary of the passage of that bill, and so I appreciated that.

Finally, John Lane dedicated some 45 years of his life to representing northerners at various levels of government. He was elected in an incredible number of

elections, 34 in total, which I think must be a record somewhere. I think that speaks volumes about the level of his commitment to public life, to his riding, to his community and to the north in

general. I also think it speaks a great deal about the man himself that his constituents, over that many elections, would continue to elect him to represent them.

In closing, I would like to extend my condolences to the family, and I would like to thank them for sharing John Lane with the people of Ontario for so many,

many years. I think we will remember his valuable contribution as an MPP in the Legislature today, but it is true that his constituents in his former riding will benefit from all of the work that

he did for many, many years to come.

The Speaker: I thank all of the members for their kind comments, and I will ensure copies of today's Hansard are sent to the Lane family.

CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member for St Catharines has given the required time for a point of privilege.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I wrote to you about the point of privilege pursuant to standing order

21(c), and I wished at that time to serve notice that I intend to move a point of privilege this afternoon regarding the Environmental Commissioner.

It will be my submission that the Ministry of the Environment has perpetrated a contempt of this Legislature by impeding and obstructing an officer of this

House; namely, the Environmental Commissioner.

What is it exactly to be in contempt of Parliament? Let me quickly cite two references from the 22nd edition of Erskine May.

Quoting from page 108 of Erskine May on contempt, "Generally speaking, any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the

performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such

results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence."

On page 125 of Erskine May, 22nd edition, under the subtitle "Obstructing Officers of Either House," I read, "It is a contempt to obstruct or molest those

employed by or entrusted with the execution of the orders of either House while in the execution of their duty."

Further, as indicated, "Both Houses will treat as contempts, not only acts directly tending to obstruct their officers in the execution of their duty, but also

any conduct which may tend to deter them from doing their duty...."

In the recently published House of Commons Procedure and Practice by Marleau and Montpetit, it is similarly affirmed that it is such a contempt of Parliament

to stand in the way of an officer of Parliament who is doing his or her duty. Let me cite one reference from Marleau and Montpetit on page 67. This refers to the ruling of M me

Sauvé, who was Speaker in 1980, when she wrote, "While our privileges are defined, contempt of the House has no limits. When new ways are found to interfere with our proceedings, so too will

the House, in appropriate cases, be able to find that a contempt of the House has occurred."

Finally,

section 46 of our own Legislative Assembly Act sets out the jurisdiction of this House to inquire into and punish, as breaches of privilege or as

contempt, a number of matters, including, "Assault upon or interference with an officer of the assembly while in the execution of his or her duty."

The case of privilege that I rise on stems from the report tabled in the House today by the Environmental Commissioner, who is an officer of this Legislature.

It is the mandate of the Environmental Commissioner to review how provincial ministries carry out the requirements of the Environmental Bill of Rights and to report to the Legislative Assembly

annually.

In his annual report, called Having Regard, the Environmental Commissioner's Annual Report 2000-01, the commissioner states the following:

"In February 2000, MOE proposed further amendments to O.Reg. 347 to strengthen the rules for characterizing wastes as hazardous by adopting the lists and tests

in the US rules. The changes, finalized in October 2000, will improve environmental protection, because they will keep more potentially hazardous wastes out of non-hazardous waste landfills. But

the proposed amendments did not strengthen Ontario's rules for handling and disposal of hazardous wastes. Many stakeholders commenting on the proposals advised the ministry that the changes were a

positive step, but unless they are accompanied by the tougher US standards for disposal, the large volume of hazardous waste flowing into Ontario from the US would continue unabated."

The commissioner goes on to say that the Ministry of the Environment continued to tell the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario "during 2000 that it was

reviewing the need for land disposal restrictions. In November 2000, however, the ministry announced that `the province has now fulfilled its six-point action plan' and in a February 2001 report to

the ECO, MOE made it clear there would be no further ongoing review."

The commissioner goes on, "The ECO concludes that there is still a major need for improvements in the policies regarding hazardous waste. The Safety-Kleen

landfill remains a magnet for US wastes. Given capacity pressures, lack of alternative disposal options, public concerns and recent environmental problems, the ministry should undertake a more

comprehensive review. Many of the issues raised in recent EBR applications remain unaddressed. For example the ministry doesn't have adequate data about or regulation of the significant amounts of

hazardous waste disposed of on-site, or discharged into sewers."

Finally, the Environmental Commissioner says, "The ECO believes MOE should address these problems. The ministry should examine why US imports of hazardous

waste are rising, and should consider adopting the US rules such as land disposal restrictions and extended liability. The ministry should also put more effort into pollution prevention, to reduce

the generation of hazardous waste in Ontario. Finally, the ministry should be more open and forthcoming about the status of its policy reviews. MOE gave the impression with its six-point action

plan that the ministry was going to overhaul its hazardous waste management regime. Instead, MOE undertook only limited measures and misled applicants and the ECO about the scope of its review.

Actions such as these undermine public confidence in the ministry. In order to restore public confidence, MOE should carry out a broader and more transparent review of its overall approach to

hazardous waste management."

Now, the Environmental Commissioner's report focused in part on the environment ministry's misleading of the Environmental Commissioner, as seen in the

following statement: "Finally, the ministry should be more open and forthcoming about the status of its policy reviews. MOE gave the impression," as I had mentioned, with the six-point plan that it

was doing so.

I find the very fact that an officer of this House, a person selected by this Parliament and sworn to faithfully discharge his duties to this House, has taken

the extraordinary step of advising us that the authority of his office was, to quote from the commissioner's own report, "misled ... about the scope of [the ministry's] review" and that actions

such as these undermine public confidence in the ministry, shows the Ministry of the Environment has committed contempt against this Legislature, as well as the people of Ontario.

To mislead the Environmental Commissioner regarding protecting the safety of the people of Ontario cannot be a more serious misappropriation of the powers of

Parliament on the part of the government. I submit these matters to you, Mr Speaker, for your urgent and serious consideration and trust that you agree with me that this deception is a prima facie

case of contempt.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): I listened very carefully to the honourable member's alleging that there has

been some sort of obstruction. We have been, as you know, Mr Speaker, down the road before with the opposition, where they make these allegations. They make great, grand claims, and investigation

subsequently proves them not to be matters of contempt of the Legislature.

Clearly, there would appear to be a disagreement between the commissioner and ministry officials about the scope of a review, the scope of analysis, the scope

of work. Is it comprehensive enough? Is it what the commissioner thought was going to happen? There clearly would appear to be disagreements between them. One of the reasons we have a commissioner

is to make recommendations to the government, which are examined and put into place. Disagreements around the scope are not new, but that's hardly, I would submit, a case of obstructing the

commissioner from doing his job.

Clearly, he had access, he had information. He has made a judgment on that. He has made recommendations which the Minister of the Environment will take very,

very seriously. So I hardly think that that constitutes anything like obstructing an officer of this Legislature from doing what they are charged to do.

The Speaker: I thank the member for his submission and the government House leader. I will reserve my ruling and will read thoroughly what the

member said. I will also have an opportunity to read what the Environmental Commissioner said. I have not had an opportunity to do that, but I will do so and report back to this House.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Education. Minister, in this Legislature and on the road,

you've been telling us that public education is in great shape, your reforms are working and things are getting better day in and day out.

It turns out that you're saying something entirely different to your caucus. I have a copy of your confidential briefing, called the back-to-school plan, a

presentation to caucus by the Minister of Education. In this you acknowledge, quite rightly, that you have created a mess in public education. You admit that you are underfunding our schools; you

admit that schools are literally falling apart; you admit that you are giving boards less for busing today than you did in 1991; you admit that there aren't enough textbooks in our schools and you

admit that public satisfaction has plummeted to 37%.

Minister, you are being honest with your caucus when it comes to the state of public education. Why won't you stand up now and be honest with the Ontario

public?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): With all due respect to the honourable member, I thought his research

department was better than the Toronto Star, who go out and get something they claim to be a secret document and then say it's evidence of some great secret strategy.

This government has been very up front about the need to change how past governments funded school construction and school capital. Of course, there's a

problem there. That's why months ago we went out to the school boards and said, "Give us the data so we can fix the problem because past governments didn't."

Are there problems with student learning? You bet there are problems with student learning. That's why this government said we had to change the curriculum and

we had to test: because we knew that our kids weren't getting what they needed.

You didn't think testing was necessary. We said it was. We said it would show the problems. We're putting in place strategies to fix it. In June, I announced

the early reading strategy to fix the grade 3 test. Where have the opposition and the Toronto Star been?

Mr McGuinty: Do you want to know where I've been, Minister? I've been with Ontario parents, Ontario students, Ontario teachers and our public

school boards all along. That's where I've been.

Let me read some more from your confidential caucus presentation. It says, "Parents see there is a lack of textbooks and classroom supplies in Ontario

schools." It says one third of students failed the grade 10 literacy test last year; low test results anticipated for grade 9; minimal improvement in grade 3 testing.

Finally, do you know what it says? In terms of the plan to address the plight that our children find themselves in when it comes to public education -- I guess

maybe this is the more important point here -- it says the minister asked in the final page of her presentation, "Is the policy, is the vision, still valid?"

Let me tell you, Minister, you've had six long and painful years and this has been your legacy: crowded classrooms, demoralized teachers, and students who

aren't performing up to par. We've got crumbling schools and we've got a shortage of textbooks. When are you going to finally admit your reforms aren't working and you're selling our kids

short?

Hon Mrs Ecker: This really defies belief. We went out and said we were going to do a grade 10 literacy test because we knew that the kids in

our high schools didn't have the literacy skills they needed.

The opposition said that wasn't necessary. They said everything was just hunky-dory. We knew that wasn't true. That's why we improved the curriculum, that's

why we put that test in place for grade 10, so we could fix the problem, so we would have actual accurate data.

We have the data. It proved we were right in the changes we are making. We're putting in place more resources for remediation and extra help for students on

the grade 10 literacy test. That's what a government committed to improving public education does: they go out and measure, find the problems you guys didn't fix when you were in government and

then put in place the strategies to fix them. We have been very open about that. We had public notices about that. We told parents where we were coming from on this, because we believe in being

open with them, contrary to the opposition.

Mr McGuinty: Madam Minister, you can muster as much bluster as you choose, but the fact of the matter is that you have been on the job over

there for six long years. Any problems connected with public education in Ontario today rightfully belong to you. That's the state of public education.

Do you know what you say your plan is in this confidential presentation to your caucus? Under "Political Objective," it says, "Turn down the noise on labour

and financial issues."

Do you know what I'm asking you to do now, Minister? I'm asking you to ignore your political concerns for your government's ailing political fortunes and do

the right thing for our children. Instead of focusing on spin, I'm asking you to turn on the substance. I want you to invest in public education. I want you to support our students, I want you to

support their teachers and I want you to support public education by expressing your unreserved commitment to it. That's what's lacking in public education today. You've got the data. We've got the

tests. The only thing that is missing in public education is this government's commitment to it.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Let's be very clear: the data, the standards this member is now using are standards that party disagreed with. They said you

didn't need to change the curriculum, you didn't need to set higher standards, you didn't need to have accountability frameworks. We know you did.

He makes great fun of the phrase, "Turn down the noise on labour issues." Do you know what? That phrase is what parents said to us. That's why we introduced

back-to-work legislation in Hamilton. Did they support it when parents said, "Turn down the noise"? No, they didn't. They played politics. They told parents they would help solve the issue, and

then they reneged here in the House. When we brought forward legislation that would say there would be three-year agreements to have more labour peace, because parents said, "Please make that

happen," did they support that? No, they didn't. So really this great self-righteous indignation the honourable member has is a laugh.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): This question is to the Minister of the Environment. Today, the Environmental Commissioner of

Ontario filed his annual report with this Legislature. I've only been here 11 years now, but it contains some of the most stinging, damning indictments and language I have ever seen in a report

submitted to this Legislature.

Let me tell you about one of the things it says. On the matter of the Oak Ridges moraine, the commissioner says as follows: "The ministers also suggested that

municipalities and voters are responsible for protecting the moraine through local planning decisions. This statement is deceptive and factually incorrect."

On the matter of hazardous waste management in Ontario, the commissioner makes this finding: "MOE gave the impression with its six-point action plan that the

ministry was going to overhaul its hazardous waste management regime. Instead, MOE undertook only limited measures and misled applicants and the " Environmental Commissioner of Ontario.

Minister, how could the people of Ontario trust you if we have a stinging indictment like this, talking about misleading and putting forward crassly incorrect

statements?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of the Environment): To the Leader of the Opposition, if you had the opportunity today to listen to the

commissioner as he gave his report, he did indicate on the issue of the Oak Ridges moraine that obviously he was pleased with the consultation that was taking place at the present time and that he

was looking forward to some very positive outcomes. As you would know yourself, it took tremendous courage for the Minister of Municipal Affairs to embark on the review of the moraine and allow

everyone in this province the opportunity for input.

On the issue of hazardous waste, I would remind the member opposite that this government has moved forward with the overhaul of the hazardous waste regulations

and framework like no other government before them. We now have the toughest hazardous waste regulations in the history of this province, and we are --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary?

Mr McGuinty: I'm just reading the report filed by the Environmental Commissioner. On the Oak Ridges moraine he uses words like "deceptive and

factually incorrect." On the matter of hazardous waste management, he talks about "misleading the applicants" and the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario himself.

Then, Madam Minister, on the matter of provincially significant natural heritage areas, protected lands, the Environmental Commissioner says, and I quote from

page 137, "The public was seriously misled" because of an unannounced change in the planning process. "As a result of the ministries' failure to provide interim protection, almost 600 mining claims

were staked in the proposed protected areas."

In this report so far I've found one reference to "factually incorrect," two references to "misleading" and one reference to "deceiving." How can Ontarians

trust a government that is found by our Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, an impartial, objective officer of this Legislature -- how can we trust you, Madam Minister, to protect our

environment when the Environmental Commissioner uses words like "misleading" and "deceiving"?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition opposite that we very much welcome the report that has been provided. We take all

these recommendations very seriously. Our government has taken tremendous steps in this last year in order to strengthen environmental protection in the province.

As the member opposite full well knows, the report that we have before us today is a report that encompasses what happened in 2000 and 2001 until the end of

March. Also, if you take a look at the data regarding hazardous waste, that data actually was compiled during the period of 1994 to 1998. So if you take a look at what the government's done on the

Oak Ridges moraine, on what we've done to move forward in the way of improving air quality in the province, whether it's the electricity sector, the transportation sector or the industrial --

The Speaker: I'm afraid the minister's time is up. Final supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Madam Minister, I'm not sure you appreciate exactly how serious the findings are that have been made by the Environmental

Commissioner of Ontario. He's using language, Madam Minister, that if I weren't quoting, I'm sure the Speaker would call me as being out of order. He says that you're factually incorrect, that you

are misleading and that you are deceiving the Ontario public. I'm quoting the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. That is what he is saying.

it is to mislead purposely. That's what the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario is saying.

Again I ask you, Madam Minister, how can you expect Ontarians to look to you as the champion of our environment, as somebody who's standing on guard for not

only this generation but for generations yet to come? How can we have any faith in you whatsoever if our Environmental Commissioner is charging you with misleading and deceiving?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Obviously the leader opposite is choosing to quote from this book as he sees fit. Maybe we want to take a look at where it

says:

"Staff at the prescribed ministries are generally co-operative in providing information when it is requested....

"The ECO makes monthly requests for information to the Ministry of the Environment's EBR office through the manager, which saves time for staff at both ends.

In 2000/2001, the EBRO staff have been consistently cooperative, and responses to ECO requests were thorough and informative."

He also goes on to say, "In this reporting year...the ECO is pleased to report that MBS and the Ontario Realty Corp staff made significant efforts to improve

their co-operation with the ECO and have submitted a comprehensive EBR report for 2000/2001."

To the leader opposite, you can take a look at this report and you can see in here that there is an individual who has been charged --

The Speaker: Order. The minister's time is up. New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Minister, today the Environment Commissioner had to

admit that he cannot assure Ontario citizens that the air quality in our province is going to improve at the same time that the Ontario Medical Association tell us that thousands of Ontario

residents are dying due to air pollution.

The Environment Commissioner is forced to admit that he can't see that it's going to improve, but he says it could improve, it would improve if your government

required that coal-burning generating stations like Nanticoke and all the others in addition to Lakeview stopped burning coal. In the interests of cleaner air, Minister, will you order them to do

that?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I find it very interesting in listening to either the Leader of the Opposition or the leader the third party how they very

selectively take quotes from the Environmental Commissioner's report, how they very selectively take information from his press conference this morning. If you want to be totally accurate, the

Environmental Commissioner also made reference today, this morning, to the fact that part of the impact on air quality this year was the weather.

However, having said that, we all know everybody in this government knows that we must take steps to improve air quality in the province. We also know that 50%

of air pollution comes --

The Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr Hampton: Some of us were surprised when we heard Ronald Reagan blame air pollution on the birds. Now we have the Minister of the

Environment in Ontario saying it's the weather. Minister, it's not the weather. The fact of the matter is you have a ministry that isn't doing the job of protecting Ontario's environment for the

people and that's what the Environmental Commissioner is trying to tell us and tell you.

He also acknowledges in his report that you still don't have enough enforcement officers out there to do the job. He's forced to admit that for all of Ontario

you have only 30 inspectors. He tells us, over and over again, that your government cut the enforcement officers, your government cut the testing labs, your government cut the number of inspectors.

He tells us that there's not a good enough job being done.

Minister, would you admit now that protecting the environment is more important than tax cuts for your well-off friends and commit to the people of Ontario to

restore the enforcement officers, to restore the government testing labs so you can begin to do the job of protecting the environment?

Hon Mrs Witmer: It's unfortunate that the leader of the third party continues to misquote, in many ways, the information that has been

provided by the Environmental Commissioner.

Let's talk about air quality and let's talk about enforcement staff. We have hired more than 130 new enforcement and investigative-related staff since the year

2000. Remember, that report goes until the end of March 2001.

Let's also remember that ministry investigators have laid 23% more charges in the first six months of 2001. The number of charges laid in 2000 increased by

48%. The orders issued increased by 312% from 1999 to 2000. The tickets issued increased from 183 in 1999 --

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

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Minister, talk about selective quotations. You're not telling us the numbers for the years before

that.

I want to ask you about the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Environmental Commissioner's report points out that a safe drinking water act would give Ontarians a

clear statutory right to clean and safe drinking water. He also says such a bill would give our citizens the right to sue a violator of the drinking water standards simply for violating those

standards and it would address the causes of drinking water contamination. Your new regulations don't cover any of these, but you do have a chance to remedy that. On October 11, Bill 3, my Safe

Drinking Water Act, will come up for second reading in this House again. My question, Minister is this: will you ensure that your members support the safe drinking water bill this time or will you

do what they did the last time -- support the bill and kill it by not allowing it to go to committee?

Hon Mrs Witmer: If we take a look at the drinking water protection regulation in this province, we will see that there's a quote from the

Quebec government stating, "Following the example of the United States and Ontario, the new Quebec regulation requires owners of distribution systems to perform minimal treatment of water which

comes in whole or part from a source affected directly by service water."

Again, if we take a look at the report from the Sierra Legal Defence Fund in January, 2001, they gave us a mark of B, the highest in the country. Ken Ogilvie

of the environmental watchdog Pollution Probe called the new law, "A good piece of work, because it transforms what were guidelines into legally binding standards."

I can assure you that the new act that we have in place is a very important step as we move forward to ensure people's health and safety.

EDUCATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, I know it's hard for you to admit that your

education policies are failing. It was M. Snobelen, I remind you, who manufactured a crisis in our schools while denying it all along. Now, by your own secret admission to your colleagues, you

acknowledge that our public schools are crumbling. Won't you, mon amie, tell us publicly what you are felling privately and admit that your education policies are a bust?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): It's hardly a case of anything being secret. We've been talking publicly

about the problems, that past governments had let the capital construction, the school stock, fall into disarray. That's why months ago we started a survey; we publicly talked about the need for

that data so we could help schools to fix the aging school stock. We've been public about that. we've been public about the need for doing a literacy test and when we do it, we announce the results

publicly. We ask parents what their views are on these matters. We publicly state what the problems are. We've gone out and put in place strategies to try and fix the problems. This government is

the only government in this House in my lifetime that had the courage to actually go out and do that research, to take that data, to put it out publicly to prove that we needed to do a better job

with our education system. That's hardly a secret strategy.

Mr Marchese: Minister, you've confessed through this confidential government document to the erosion of quality in our public system. Public

confidence is floundering for obvious reasons that you state in the document. Public schools are crumbling under you -- not under us, but under you. The textbooks are in short supply and people

know it. You know it. And people are tired of you beating up on teachers.

I remind you that your government collects from one single taxpayer and these taxes go to one money pot. So I say to you, when are you going to stand up for

public education and, quite frankly, for yourself and tell the Minister of Finance that the $300 million he wants to give to the private schools are needed in our public system and they're needed

desperately? When are you going to stand up for yourself, if no one else?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I am very pleased, and this is a red-letter day, that the NDP finally recognizes that there's only one taxpayer. I think that's

an important thing. We understand that. That's why we stopped the incredible increases in education property taxes that were such a problem for senior citizens and those on fixed incomes. We

changed the way we fund education. We've increased the amount of money for public education. It used to be $12.9 billion when the opposition party was in power. It is now $13.8 billion, an increase

greater than the growth of enrolment. We put in over $360 million in net new money just this year alone.

Should we make more investments in public education? You bet we should. We recognize that. That's why economic prosperity is so important to us, so we can have

the revenue and keep investing in public education and health care instead of letting it deteriorate, instead of letting it be at risk like that party did when they were in government.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock. A point of privilege from the member for Windsor-Sinclair.

Just before you stand up, I hope the point of privilege relates to question period. I will listen very carefully. If it does not, I will refer you to the

Speaker's ruling of April 21, 1993, which says points of privilege should be raised after, instead of inside, question period. So if it relates to question period, I will hear your point of

privilege, but I will be very quick. Could you get very distinctly to why we should be doing it during question period. Otherwise I would ask the member to do it after question period. Does it

relate to question period?

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Mr Speaker, I'll defer that.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Acting Premier. We have just learned that a media advisory was put out

by the Office of the Premier, advising Ontarians that the Premier will be outlining measures the provincial government plans to take following the events of September 11, 2001, in the United

States. He's going to provide us with this information by way of a video news release at 4:30 pm today. I understand that one of the measures the Premier is announcing is an accelerated plan of tax

cuts.

Minister, you will know, as someone who has actually been present in the Legislature recently, that we put forward a number of positive proposals with respect

to strengthening our economy post-September 11. We've asked for an economic summit. We put forward a proposal to protect our exports to the United States. We've asked for an updated fiscal and

economic outlook.

Do you not think that in the circumstances the appropriate thing to do would be for the Premier to be here to put that plan forward so we might debate it in

this Legislature?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): It's very important, certainly for our government and our leader, to

express to the Ontario public and the Canadian public as a whole how important the future of this province is. I must say to the Leader of the Opposition, though, that I think he's going to have to

stay tuned, along with the rest of the public, later on to hear.

But since he raised it, I'd like to mention that what we have here is a Premier who is going to indicate, from my perspective and many people's, a great

indication of his leadership. What's been sadly lacking today in Canadian politics is leadership for this country. I believe that over the last few weeks I've had many members of the public come up

and say to me, "Thank goodness we have Mike Harris there to lead us in Ontario, because he is someone who will show real leadership for this province."

Mr McGuinty: Minister, obviously I don't share your confidence in the Premier. We have a matter of the utmost urgency before us. Our economy

was in a serious downturn prior to September 11. September 11 was a cataclysmic event in our economy. You know just how heavily dependent we are on the American economy. You know how important it

is for us to get it right when it comes to the strategy we're going to put in place to arrest this downward turn and make sure we're protecting jobs and retirement savings for our families. That's

ultimately what this is all about.

We think the most important thing you could begin by doing is introducing a fiscal and economic update in this House. So I ask you, how can the Premier go on

Ontario-wide TV with a cassette announcing a fiscal strategy when he should be in this Legislature giving us all the opportunity to debate the best approach to making sure we have a strong

economy?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I must say I'm a little astonished. I think we've indicated and shown through our government over a period of years that

we've certainly taken a very conservative approach to the finances of this province. As a result of our measures, we've been able to balance the budget. We've been introducing tax cuts for the

people of this province. We've reduced red tape. That certainly has had a very positive result, so I think taking the conservative approach is very important.

I remind the Leader of the Opposition, though, what he said back on March 1, 1998, CKCO TV. He said, "I think people understand that when we" -- being the

Liberals -- "make promises, generally that calls for a tax hike." Well, you know what? You're out of sync with the rest of the world right now. I think we've positioned the province to be in the

best position in this entire country to deal with any type of unforeseen circumstance.

TOURISM

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): My question --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member for Hamilton East, come to order, please.

The member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. Sorry for the interruption.

Mr Miller: My question is for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. Tourism is a significant industry in my riding of Parry

Sound-Muskoka.

I listened with interest to your statement in the Legislature last week about your ministry's response immediately following the events of September 11. I also

know that you called a summit of tourism leaders last Friday, which includes Grace Cerniuk from Resorts Ontario as well as representatives of other tourism organizations.

Minister, could you inform the House what the outcome of that meeting was and what you are doing to help tourism recover across our province?

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation): I appreciate the ongoing interest of the member from Parry Sound-Muskoka in the

tourism industry.

As he mentioned, we had a summit of industry leaders on Friday -- more than 20 from district marketing organizations as well as from industry associations --

to talk about how tourism has been directly impacted by the events of September 11.

I had the pleasure of travelling to 101 different events this summer across this province, impressed by the quality of the people in the industry, the quality

of our attractions, and reinforced in the meeting on Friday as well, the resiliency of the tourism industry. In fact, very optimistic around the table that despite difficult times, we will bounce

back and get people moving again in the province.

We heard in that meeting support for our actions to date: reassuring travellers to continue, the extending of hours of operation in our centres and our 1-800

line, and getting weekly bulletins of information out to tourism stakeholders on both sides of the border. Very good support and advice on further execution of our plan to gather information to

adjust our marketing strategy and to continue to get folks to travel across this --

The Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr Miller: I know tourism operators in my riding want to get the message out that they're open for business, and certainly the last couple of

years have been boom years in Parry Sound-Muskoka, thanks in large part to the policies of this government.

We want people to come to our area and see the gorgeous fall colours, stay at our hotels and resorts, eat in our restaurants and shop in our shops.

We have heard repeatedly from the Premier and from leaders in New York that it is important to carry on with our lives in the wake of this terrible attack.

In addition to what you have already announced, what other plans have you to assist the tourism industry in Ontario?

Hon Mr Hudak: As mentioned, we heard strong support from the industry for our plan and executing that plan, and we will execute on the advice

from tourism operators to buy ads to get our message out that the borders have returned to pre-September 11 traffic patterns and folks can continue to cross the border and enjoy Ontario's

attractions.

We're going to move ahead aggressively with our fall and winter campaigns. We're going to extend them in fact into the Quebec and British Columbia markets.

We're going to formalize and build on past success and partnerships for our winter campaign with areas like Niagara, Ottawa, Tourism Toronto and Resorts Ontario.

A further meeting of our marketing experts tomorrow, another summit on October 9 to finalize and launch that marketing strategy to let folks know across this

province, those contemplating travelling to the province of Ontario that we have great things to offer, great quality attractions, great quality people. Despite difficult times, we will bounce

back; we'll get people moving again, visiting our attractions, spending money in our hotels, our restaurants and our attractions.

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Acting Premier about the raid by the RCMP on the Premier's office. There have

been a couple of raids there to try to get documents that they were withholding.

I have to ask the minister this: when I asked the Premier previously, I got the condescending and arrogant answer to it. When I asked Mr Flaherty, the deputy

premier of the day, he simply dismissed these charges that you were not forthcoming with all the documents.

And yet we find out from an affidavit to obtain a search warrant that we have access to now that in fact you refused to provide all of the documents that were

necessary for the Walkerton inquiry, that you refused to provide any information about Guy Giorno, who is the most powerful person in that government, and that you refused to key in such things as

water and agriculture when asked to find information that would be relevant to the RCMP.

Why is it that you are withholding documents from the Walkerton inquiry, and why did you force the RCMP to conduct a raid to get those documents?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I refer that to the Attorney General.

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I am happy to address the query raised by the member opposite,

but I would encourage him to use some good judgment, some discretion and some reasonableness.

Nothing could be further from the truth. We have co-operated fully from day one. In fact, a million documents have been produced to date. Every deadline set by

the commission has been met. In fact, the government has managed to get documents to the commission well in advance of most of the deadlines.

I will say this to you: there was no raid, as the member opposite describes it. What there was was a friendly search warrant, consensual. That was done on

numerous occasions and is done on numerous occasions by royal commissions and commissions of that sort. It is the procedure that was accepted by all to be the best, and there was full co-operation

by the government.

Mr Bradley: The Attorney General's answers on this are about as weak as they are on Ipperwash, where you provided selected information to

members of this House at that time.

But the Walkerton inquiry asked for specific information about the Premier's office and Guy Giorno. It says, "Police analysis of his hard drive was severely

restricted under the search conditions to which he had agreed and took place in a government lawyer's office. RCMP technical experts described the review as stressful. They were also denied access

to the main mail servers in the Premier's office during the June 13 visit. On different occasions, inquiry lawyers expressed serious concern about delays in turning over documents and warned that

Harris could be recalled to the witness stand."

I ask the Attorney General, you know darned well that Guy Giorno is the most powerful person in the Premier's office, yet you withheld documents that are part

of Guy Giorno's paraphernalia. Why is it that you withheld those documents, and why did you force the RCMP to raid?

Hon Mr Young: I'm happy to address the member opposite. I guess this is his attempt at fiction. Obviously he pays no attention to anything

said by anyone in authority, to anything said by anyone on this side of the Legislature, so let's read to him -- because he won't read it for himself -- what commission counsel Paul Cavalluzzo has

to say.

He stated very clearly in writing that the Premier's staff has co-operated fully. His words are as follows: "It wasn't a raid in any sense." I'll repeat it

because my friend opposite seems to have a hearing impairment. "It wasn't a raid in any sense. It's just that in the natural course of the inquiry, that's how we obtain documents. The date was set.

It was agreed to. We in fact and the Premier's office had provided a number of dates, any of which would have been acceptable to us, for the visit. Full co-operation was provided on that occasion,

as has been the case from day one."

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): My question is for the Solicitor General. We have all been saddened by the numerous incidents of youth violence,

too many of which result in death. It is my understanding that reaching at-risk youth early is often a key to preventing a life of crime.

Minister, can you tell us about the most recent initiative this government has undertaken to combat youth violence?

Hon David Turnbull (Solicitor General): Clearly, every citizen in Ontario has a right to feel safe and be safe in their home and in their

community. That's why we've taken steps as a government to support enforcement and prevention initiatives reducing violence among young people.

On September 18, I announced an initiative which is a $2-million grant for the youth crime and violence initiative to enhance community safety. The funding is

divided into two areas, one for enforcement grants and the other half for prevention grants. The enforcement grants are aimed at police services and the prevention grants are aimed to help

community groups to help with partnerships to prevent crime before it begins.

Mrs Munro: I know that the youth crime and violence initiative is only one of the many programs and initiatives our government has put in

place. Minister, would you tell this house of some of the other ways this government is trying to put an end to youth crime and violence?

Hon Mr Turnbull: The youth crime and violence initiative is just the latest in a series of announcements that we've made. Since 1997, we have

in fact flowed $1.7 million in funding for Partners Against Crime community grants to 62 community-specific projects. We've put 1,000 new front-line police officers on the streets in Ontario

through the community policing program, and also we've provided recently a $200,000 grant to the association of Crime Stoppers for an after-hours hotline. Additionally, just a few weeks ago, I

attended at the OSPCA to make a $50,000 grant to the society for the youth animal pilot project, which puts at-risk youth together with animals so that they train them. This is a very effective

program at getting at prevention.

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): The question is for the Acting Premier. The Premier told the people of Ontario that your government

would fully co-operate with the Walkerton Inquiry. Now we find that didn't happen. In fact, court documents show a running battle between the Walkerton Inquiry to get files from the Premier's

office and your government's attempt to exclude those files. That running battle led to an unprecedented search of the Premier's office by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Acting Premier, can you explain to the people of Ontario why the Royal Canadian Mounted Police felt it necessary to conduct a court-approved search of the

Premier's office?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I'll refer to the Attorney General.

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I will repeat for the member opposite the fact that this

government has co-operated from day one. We have produced in excess of a million documents. I will tell you in addition that we will do whatever it takes to get to the bottom of this, because the

issue is a very serious one and we are committed to ensuring that we determine exactly what happened.

In order to do that we have co-operated at every step of the way. We met every deadline, as I indicated earlier. The RCMP office and the visit that occurred

should be put in perspective. What happened was that the commission asked for the assistance of a particular RCMP officer, an individual who had expertise in the retrieval of information. That

individual was used in many different respects in many different places. On this occasion, he asked for an opportunity to review some records that were in the Premier's office. We agreed.

Mr Hampton: Well, Premier, since the Attorney General didn't provide an explanation, I will provide one. The fact of the matter is that most

of the documents you handed over to the inquiry were completely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is -- and documents before the commission show this -- the RCMP had to get a search warrant

because the Premier's office tried to exclude any electronic file that dealt with water, cutbacks, or agriculture.

In the midst of the worst polluted-water disaster in Ontario -- seven people killed, more than 2,000 people rendered seriously ill -- the Premier's office

tried to exclude electronic files that dealt with water, that dealt with cutbacks, or dealt with agriculture. How, Attorney General, does the Premier's office justify trying to exclude those files

from the inquiry?

Hon Mr Young: This is an interesting forum we have here. Every other day in this forum people scream for public inquiries. The opposition have

asked for no less than 162. When there is a public inquiry and it is underway, what we see demonstrated by the opposition is that they have no idea how a public inquiry works. One aspect of a

public inquiry that is frequently utilized in order to get production in a timely manner is a friendly or consensual search warrant. It has been used in the past in inquiries and it has been used

in this inquiry, and the government has co-operated fully in the production of those documents through that source.

The RCMP made a complete copy of the hard disk and it was provided to them at a time and place that they requested. The RCMP was given unrestricted access to

the data that they requested -- the officer was -- and the RCMP decided how to conduct their investigation, what key words to put in. The Premier's office co-operated fully. That is the way that

commissions work.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. I read the report with interest, particularly the

section on Safety-Kleen. The commissioner reviewed how your ministry responded to that application made by myself and another resident to review the certificate of approval.

We provided to the ministry strong evidence supporting our concerns about the landfill, the incinerator, and its impact on the environment and human health. In

spite of all that evidence that we presented to your ministry, the response to us was that the certificate of approval for that landfill and incinerator was adequate.

What concerns me most is that your ministry, according to the commissioner's report, responded to that application with inaccuracy and, as he states,

misleading and without factual information. Again, I indicated, by the report, you consistently seem to cover up the problems and leave the responsibility to the company.

I can read from the report. The question is --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Minister?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of the Environment): I'm very pleased to state in response to the question that has been asked that we are

continuing to move forward with our overhaul of the waste management regime. We believe there is a need to continually strengthen and improve the management of hazardous waste. As the member

opposite knows, there has not been substantial change to the regulations or the framework since 1985.

In response to the question that you're asking, we have introduced some very strong amendments that will strengthen our framework. It now looks like our

framework for the hazardous waste system is the toughest we've seen in the history of this province. It does make it much more comprehensive and much more in line with what's happening in the

United States, and we will continue with that overhaul to protect not only the residents in the Sarnia area --

The Speaker: Order. The minister's time is up. Supplementary.

Ms Di Cocco: Minister, you haven't, though. The point is that you have not taken that evidence and you have not strengthened. You appear to

be. The report says, "In press releases and statements, the ministry gave the impression that the `action plan' included reviewing and strengthening existing Cs of A for hazardous waste facilities

to match US...." -- appeared to -- you didn't do it, you just do the public relations spin.

This is a serious problem. It's the largest hazardous waste landfill in Canada. You have not done due diligence, in my view, in protecting public health and

public safety, and this report corroborates that. You have a responsibility, not Safety-Kleen. Who's in whose pocket here? You seem to be protecting the interests of Safety-Kleen and not the

interests of the public.

Minister, it is my constituents and it is that part of southwestern Ontario that is going to have huge environmental impacts. When are you going to change the

rules so that we --

The Speaker: The member's time is up. Minister.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I think some of those comments were probably somewhat unfortunate. The member may want to reconsider.

However, having said what has been said, I think it's important to also take a look at what the commissioner has said about the regulatory environment for

hazardous waste management.

As I indicated before, the whole regime has been relatively unchanged since 1985. We recognize there is a problem, and we are doing a comprehensive overhaul.

In fact, I am very pleased to indicate that we are going to be moving forward. We are right now considering a plan that would include the pre-treatment of hazardous waste before disposal. We want

The Speaker: The minister's time is up.

New question.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): Minister, I want to jump off on that same point, because I know that in that environmental report hazardous

waste imports have risen dramatically. Maybe you could flesh out, are hazardous waste imports currently rising in the province, or what's the status? I want to understand this instead of taking a

cheap shot like somebody across the floor.

Hon Mrs Witmer: In response to the member, I think it's very important that everyone clearly understand there's a lot of misleading

information being communicated today. First of all, the figures about increases in hazardous waste contained in the Environmental Commissioner's report refer to the period from 1994 to 1998.

I want to share with this House the fact that Environment Canada released data in August this year, and it indicates that between 1999 and 2000 the imports of

hazardous waste into Canada decreased by 30%; however, in the province of Ontario they decreased by 35%. I believe this is very important information, because we do see a trend and it's going

downward. It's contrary to what was happening between 1994 and 1998.

Mr Spina: Minister, I'm happy that this trend is reversing, and particularly in Ontario as opposed to the rest of the country. What

initiatives are we taking as a government with respect to hazardous waste? Where are we going on this issue?

Hon Mrs Witmer: As I have mentioned in some of my responses today, we are in the course of a complete overhaul of managing hazardous waste in

the province of Ontario. This past summer we announced proposed new reporting rules and new fees for the hazardous waste industry, which will ensure that industry pays, and they will be required to

register their hazardous waste. More importantly, we have a new framework that is the toughest in Ontario's history, which came into effect on March 31.

I am also pleased to indicate today that we will be moving forward in order to ensure that we put in place a plan to pre-treat hazardous waste before disposal.

That is already required in the United States today, and we are considering such a plan.

CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): A question to the Minister of Community and Social Services: I want to tell you about a constituent of

mine, who I will call Sue, whose story exposes a major gap in services for children in this province.

Sue is a 15-year-old girl confined to a wheelchair. She suffers from cerebral palsy with spastic quadriplegia and compromised vision, but she has average

cognitive abilities. She currently lives with her grandmother, who cannot continue to care for her because of the very demanding and constant physical and emotional needs she has. As a result, Sue

is spending long periods of time in bed, as her grandmother cannot physically cope. Because her basic needs are so severely compromised, Sue is depressed and suicidal.

All our community service supports in Timiskaming have been exhausted, and yet not one ministry of your government will step up and help Sue. Why do you

persist in allowing disadvantaged people such as Sue to fall through the cracks of your government bureaucracy?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for children, minister responsible for francophone

affairs): I am always pleased to work with members on all sides of the House, to work with challenges that come up in our ridings in our capacity as members of the Legislature. I can tell

the member opposite that we've made providing supports not just to children but to adults, for people with disabilities, a priority. We've expanded supports in the community, whether it's in-home

respite care or out-of-home respite care, by $17 million, resulting from the 1999 budget. We've increased the support for people with developmental disabilities by an unprecedented amount over five

years, starting in this year's budget. We're putting more supports into our children's aid societies. We're spending a considerable amount supporting disabled children with special needs. I'm

always pleased to work with the member opposite. If he wants to provide me with the details, I'd be happy to work with him on this issue, as I would with any member.

Mr Ramsay: Minister, I'll do that. What we have here is a deficiency in the policy. You need to look at that so others like Sue can be

helped.

At a case conference two weeks ago, all in attendance agreed that Sue requires a residential placement that would not only provide her with basic needs for two

years but would also provide the physical therapy, emotional support and life skills training that would allow her to develop to her full potential. This placement would give her the skills to live

independently in assisted housing and allow her the dignity to become a productive citizen.

Minister, it is imperative that your ministry step up to the plate and take the lead responsibility to put together a multi-ministry package that would address

the needs of children such as Sue. The severely disabled who are not mentally challenged also need a champion. Will you assure me today that Sue will have the resources she requires that will

improve the quality of her life and perhaps give her a reason to dream about a bright and fulfilling future?

Hon Mr Baird: I can assure the member opposite that I'd be pleased to work with him on the issue and do all we can. It is a challenge, in this

type of environment, to do all we'd like to do. We constantly work to expand services and take steps forward, whether it's providing residential supports, whether it's providing in-home or

out-of-home support, in a variety of ministries, whether it's through our education system, through our health system or through a range of social service agencies.

In this year's budget alone we gave a major increase to children's treatment centres around the province, recognizing that providing supports to profoundly

disabled children is something that's incredibly important. We do that in a range of areas, whether it's through our children's aid societies or through our developmental disability system. We do

that through a range of community supports. It's a constant challenge. We take steps forward each and every year. I'm happy to continue to work with all members, including the member opposite if he

wants to bring the specific details to my attention.

ITER FUSION PROJECT

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology. On May 7, 2001, you reaffirmed this Legislature's

commitment to the ITER fusion project in my riding of Durham. As you know, there is considerable interest in this project throughout Durham, naturally because the Darlington generating station is

an important part of their proposal. In fact, it has been selected as Canada's site for Canada's siting group. The community council of ITER, which includes Gary Polonsky, Adrian Foster, Ron Collis

and Victoria Greene, and many other members of the local business community are closely following up this opportunity. It's my understanding that ITER could mean an estimated 68,000 person-years of

direct and indirect employment, along with an injection of some $5.2 billion into the Ontario economy.

Minister, for the purposes of the members of this House, could you --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member's time is up. Minister.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): It's an important question. The ITER group is meeting in Toronto this week. ITER

stands for international thermonuclear experimental reactor. It would be the biggest breakthrough in the history of energy in the world. The idea is to use fusion power to generate electricity. The

Ontario government has committed $10 million a year for 30 years to this project. Unfortunately, the federal government hasn't committed any money.

We're in a worldwide competition. Our main competitors right now are Japan and France. The ITER group, with an Ontario representative, presented Canada's bid

in Moscow just a few months ago. Clarington is one of the potential sites because of its proximity to Darlington. We're very hopeful that we'll win the bid, but we do need help from the federal

government.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much for that very informative response, Minister. I know the members of my riding would be pleased with the

support I've received from you, and our province committing $10 million per year over 30 years is an important commitment. I wasn't surprised at all that the federal government simply isn't up to

the job and doesn't recognize this investment in our future.

Minister, could you perhaps tell me, or report for the members of the House, any progress that may be being made. Is there a bid coming forward from other

countries; if so, what countries? What role, particularly, does the province have in this negotiation process, as it is an international process?

Hon Mr Wilson: As I said, the province has committed money to the project. It would be a 30-year science experiment, which would be very

exciting. Some 250 of the world's greatest scientists would have to come to Ontario, would probably move to Ontario. It would be the biggest reversal of the brain drain that we could ever imagine

or that any country could ever imagine. Ontario's role is to support the bid financially. We've also supported the administrative side of the bid in order to keep the team together so that they can

present Canada's case. We've supported that.

I will give some credit to the federal government. They've given a bit of money for that purpose. But the federal government seems very shy, for some reason,

to not support this huge leap in science. Again, we call upon them to help reverse the brain drain and bring this very important international project to Canada, and particularly to Ontario.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Thanks very much. I'll watch the clock, I say to the opposition House leader. It was 1:01, I looked at the clock; and I'll look

at the clock, not you.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Well, we will too.

The Speaker: Let me say this very clearly. I sometimes give leeway to people in situations like this. Your own member went over. Your own

member on the last question went over by a good 10 or 15 seconds. Would the House leader of the opposition like me to cut her off? I could have done that very easily. I try to help both sides out

as best I can, and it works out even all around, including sometimes when the leader of the official opposition goes over. I try to help every side on this.

There is going to be a question, and I decide who gets the questions. The member for Nickel Belt, I believe it was.

ONTARIO DISABILITY

SUPPORT PROGRAM

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services regarding ODSP application forms. A

constituent of ours, Patrick Murphy, doesn't have a family doctor, so he can't get the health status report form of the ODSP package completed. We've intervened at the ODSP adjudication unit to

request that a nurse practitioner be permitted to fill out the form, and we have been told that the chief medical review officer at the unit agrees with this. However, when we asked to have this

confirmed in writing, we were told that the health status report form already says that it can be completed by a nurse practitioner; indeed it does not. It clearly says that the document can only

be completed by a physician.

Minister, will you make an official decision as soon as possible to allow nurse practitioners to complete these forms so that Patrick Murphy and many other

disabled Ontarians who don't have a family doctor are not barred from applying for ODSP?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for children, minister responsible for francophone

affairs): Yes.

PETITIONS

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it's entitled Listen, Our Hearing is Important.

"Whereas services delisted by the Harris government now exceed $100 million in total; and

"Whereas Ontarians depend on audiologists for the provision of qualified hearing assessments and hearing aid prescriptions; and

"Whereas new Harris government policy will virtually eliminate access to publicly funded audiology assessments over vast regions of Ontario; and

"Whereas this new Harris government policy is virtually impossible to implement in underserviced areas across Ontario; and

"Whereas this policy will lengthen waiting lists for patients and therefore have a detrimental effect on the health of these Ontarians;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand the Mike Harris government move immediately to permanently fund

audiologists directly for the provision of audiology services."

This petition is signed by thousands of people, and I'll give it to Anthony to bring to the table.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I have a petition addressed 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, carcinogens;

"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;

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

"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 a diagnosis or a

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 have added my signature as well.

PROTECTION OF MINORS

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I have a petition signed by 1,072 people of the approximately 23,000 who have signed this petition so far.

"Whereas children are being exposed to sexually explicit materials in many commercial establishments;

"Whereas many municipalities do not have bylaws in place to protect minors and those that do vary from place to place and have failed to protect minors from

unwanted exposure to sexually explicit materials;

"Whereas uniform standards are needed in Ontario that would make it illegal to sell, rent, loan or display sexually explicit materials to minors;

"We, the undersi