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

September 27, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Sept-27 (PDF)

L080 - Wed 27 Sep 2000 / Mer 27 sep 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

ONTARIO AGRICULTURE WEEK

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

CUMBERLAND FIREFIGHTERS

SHELTER ALLOWANCES

TEACHER MISCONDUCT

EDUCATION FUNDING

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

LEGISLATIVE INTERNS

VISITOR

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROTECTION ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA PROTECTION CONTRE LA VIOLENCE FAMILIALE

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES SERVICES À L'ENFANCE ET À LA FAMILLE

VISITORS

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

VISITOR

DRAPEAU FRANCO-ONTARIEN

FRANK MILLER

ROBERT WELCH

MORTON SHULMAN

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE REFORM

SAFE DRINKING WATER PLAN

WASTE MANAGEMENT

SAFE DRINKING WATER LEGISLATION

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

COST OF ELECTRICAL POWER

SCHOOL EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

TOURISM

GOVERNMENT ASSETS

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): The broken promises to and shabby, tragic treatment of disabled Ontarians by this government has been one of its worst legacies.

I'll tell you about one story in my riding, the family of Madalena Silva and her brother, Daniel. I went to their home. Mrs Silva is saving this province hundreds of thousands of dollars every year by caring for her physically disabled mother and her developmentally and physically disabled brother at home. All they want and need is a wheelchair ramp so that Daniel, who is totally confined to a wheelchair, can get out of the house to go to medical treatments and can get out of the confines of four walls to enjoy everyday life. Yet she has been denied funding from this government at every single turn.

As a result, she has had to somehow carry Daniel up and down the stairs with the wheelchair, some 200 pounds, injuring herself, and as a result now she has to call for neighbours or ask her husband to take time off work. In turn, Daniel is missing medical appointments. He is unable to go down the street to get an ice cream and enjoy the simple pleasures of life. Daniel is imprisoned by his own disability and the barriers this government refuses to tear down.

It's time for Ontario to assist these Ontarians to fulfill the dream, I know of mine, and I know of Dalton McGuinty's, of a barrier-free Ontario. Premier, let's get that ramp for Daniel and let's remove barriers for all disabled Ontarians.

ONTARIO AGRICULTURE WEEK

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I rise in the Legislature today to remind my colleagues that one of the most important weeks of the year is fast approaching: Ontario Agriculture Week.

This year Ontario Agriculture Week will be celebrated from October 2 to October 8. I hope that all members, especially those with urban constituencies, will join with me and representatives from Ontario's agricultural community for the breakfast and official kickoff on Monday, October 2, outside in front of the Legislature.

Agriculture Week is a great opportunity to recognize Ontario's farmers and the importance of the agri-food industry. It's important to note that agriculture injects $25 billion annually into the Ontario economy and employs more than 640,000 people. I would encourage all members to take a moment next week to help salute our agri-food industry in their own riding.

In my riding of Perth-Middlesex, Tourism Stratford, the Perth County Federation of Agriculture, and Perth County Junior Farmers are helping to kick off Agriculture Week with their annual harvest day tour on Sunday, October 1. This tour is hosted by farms and agri-food businesses in Perth county. These types of events help to remind Ontarians of the unique role played by all those who help bring food from the farm gate to the dinner plate.

Next week, join me in celebrating the third annual Ontario Agriculture Week. Invite Ontario home for dinner.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): Imagine our surprise and amazement to find out there has been another escape from a privately run, for-profit detention centre in Ontario. It happened on Tuesday, September 19, at the Genest Youth Detention Centre, a high-security facility. First, Camp Turnaround or, as it is called, Camp Run-Amok, on its first day of operation, an escape. Next, a few months ago, an escape from a facility run by the same company that runs Genest. The use of a stolen van during that escape nearly cost the lives of a dozen toddlers from a nearby daycare centre. Now this one.

Even with the cherry-picked, best-behaved offenders in private facilities, the Minister of Community and Social Services still just doesn't get it: privately run, for-profit detention centres don't work. Today, we find that Minister Baird has had a report since April that cites untrained staff, non-compliance with policies and staff shortages are increasing the risk of injury to both staff and community. All these previously predicted problems cost the ministry $2.3 million a year. Minister, your own commission report, submitted in April, is asking you to halt privatization drives.

Our party leader, Dalton McGuinty, supports the many communities across the province in their fight against private, for-profit detention centres and correctional facilities. Do yourself and the communities across this province a favour and stop the privatization.

CUMBERLAND FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Brian Coburn (Ottawa-Orléans): I rise today to speak on a very important addition to my area of the national capital region. A year ago,the Cumberland Volunteer Firefighters Association received $8,000 for the purchase of a much-needed fire rescue boat. That money came from the city of Cumberland's portion of the advanced funding program for Ontario charities. More money was raised in my community of Cumberland in Ottawa-Orléans to complete the purchase with very limited impact on the fire department's operating budget.

Since it was put into service, the boat and its team have responded to many incidents, including the successful rescue of three youths back in May of this year whose canoe had tipped in the Ottawa River. The conditions were fair, but the water temperature was frigid and all three were suffering from hypothermia. From the time of the first emergency call to the time the kids were pulled to safety by the firefighters on the boat was 12 minutes. One of the children's fathers was told by a doctor at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario that he came very close to losing his son.

The Cumberland firefighters' quick response time was crucial in saving the child's life.

The opportunity provided through the Ontario charities grant program for the city of Cumberland and its volunteer firefighters continues to yield very positive results. If this rescue boat was not available, possibly another tragedy on the water would have been added to the growing statistics.

SHELTER ALLOWANCES

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): I rise today to comment on the remarks of Minister Clement at last week's federal-provincial housing ministers' meeting. It was surprising to hear the minister say it's time for governments to act, there should be no more waiting and that money had to flow directly to address the problem. What Minister Clement failed to say is that when it comes to real and effective measures, he and the Harris government are all talk and no action. Let's look at his very sorry record.

He says he's provided a much-needed rent supplement program, but what he doesn't tell you is that he is paying for it with recycled federal dollars. There is not a cent of provincial money in it. He also didn't tell you that he can't get landlords to sign up for the program. His own ministry staff says that, as of June of this year, only 1,339 of 5,000 units tendered have been contracted. He complains about the lack of tax breaks for developers, yet when we give him an opportunity to give municipalities the power to offer these breaks, as outlined in Bill 83, the Affordable Housing Incentives Act, he does nothing.

Mike Harris ran on a platform in 1995 in which his party committed to bringing in a comprehensive shelter allowance program. Instead, they cut the shelter portion of welfare and have brought in no program. That's why I feel that the minister's remarks last week were so outrageous. He demands actions from everyone but himself. His record is clear: all promises, no provincial money, no action, no plan except a plan to transfer his responsibilities on to municipalities and to blame everyone but himself and his government. If he thinks he's done enough, he's wrong.

I hope that when people who are concerned about housing see the minister's pathetic record in keeping his own meagre promises, they'll join me in expressing their disgust for the insincerity of his remarks last week.

TEACHER MISCONDUCT

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I rise today to express the concerns and outrage of many parents in my riding when they learned that a teacher who received an indefinite suspension for writing inappropriate letters to a young student was back in the classroom teaching their children.

When parents expressed concern for their children they were told that this is a teacher in good standing and cleared by the College of Teachers as fit to teach. To say that parents feel their young children are vulnerable in this teacher's classroom is a classic understatement.

Our government created the College of Teachers to enforce professional standards of conduct for our teachers to protect our children. Under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, the professional misconduct regulation ensures that the college has clear statutory authority to exercise its full disciplinary responsibilities. This doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Parents and the public alike are demanding answers from the College of Teachers and the Simcoe County District School Board with respect to this deplorable situation.

In fact, many people, including my colleagues Mr Dunlop and Minister Wilson, ask one simple question: are the college and board really looking after the best interests of the children here?

I believe the board and the College of Teachers must review their policies and procedures to make sure it is the students-the vulnerable children, the precious offspring that parents place in their care-who always come first, with no exceptions.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): I want to say what a great day it is for me to have a chance to be here this deep into the millennium and to welcome the Premier, who has shown new leadership by being here, for the first time this year, three days in a row. But I worry, because I've seen the weather forecast for tomorrow and no rain is called for, and we all know what that means: golf.

I want to say we've also noticed that Mike Harris has been advising Stockwell Day up in Ottawa. One of the first things that new leader of that party wanted to do was shorten the work week: Mike Harris providing an example of leadership to his kissing cousin, Stockwell Day in the Alliance Party.

But I want to talk about the absence of leadership while the Premier is here and in the presence of three students from Inglenook Community School who earlier today surrounded the playground in their schoolyard and made sure it could not be torn down. I applaud them for their efforts and I recommend to the Premier of this province that kind of leadership: fighting on behalf of kids who want to have playgrounds to access, fighting to make sure that swimming pools and schools are not closed, that music programs are not withdrawn and that computer classes are not cancelled. That is the Mike Harris legacy.

That is Mike Harris's leadership. On this side, we look forward to the day soon when Ontario will be restored as a place that has leadership that inspires and works hard.

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): Premier, the parents of Effica Mitchell came to Queen's Park to tell the tragic story of the death of their 10-month-old baby in a hospital emergency ward. It was a heart-rending account of parents who trusted the system.

Effica is dead, and the Mitchells, their community, in fact all of us, want to know why. Their story of long waits, little information and inadequate response is becoming all too familiar a story in Ontario's hospitals. Doctors are stressed and furious. Nurses are running non-stop and they don't have the answers to give to anxious families.

For the past two days, yet again, in all of the GTA and in some areas beyond, hospital emergency rooms have been on redirect. This summer I can tell you about a busy Scarborough emergency room where patients were lined up on stretchers, head to toe on every inch of the hallway, and some of those patients had to wait four days to get into a hospital bed.

Emergency room backlogs have been growing every year since 1996. This is a standard situation in ERs now. What's going to happen when the flu season and the peak season starts to come?

The emergency room, Premier, is like the canary in the mine for our hospital system. Your piecemeal solutions aren't a cure for Ontario's health care crisis, and a bandage won't stop the hemorrhaging.

Today again, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I am calling on you to stop emergency room closures, to have a major expansion of home care and community care and public health and immediate reform of primary care to bring about 24-hour, seven-day-a-week care in our communities so that others like baby Effica will never have to experience that again in Ontario's hospitals.

LEGISLATIVE INTERNS

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington): I rise today to remind members that this is the 25th anniversary of the Ontario legislative internship program. Each year eight recent university graduates come to Queen's Park to work with backbench members of our Legislature. The program is non-partisan and is supported by the Legislative Assembly and the Canadian Political Science Association as well as more than 20 corporate sponsors.

Here's how it works. Interns spend half of their 10-month period at Queen's Park working with opposition members and the other half with government MPPs. While legislative interns learn about the political process primarily through their work in members' offices, there is also a formal academic component that involves exchanges with interns in other Legislatures and regular sessions where they have a chance to meet and learn from each other's experiences in the various offices. They must have a university degree and are chosen through a rigorous process placing value on academic excellence, personal maturity and an interest in parliamentary government.

Having hosted two interns personally in my own office, I can vouch for their diligence and the high quality of the work of these young people. All members in this House will by now have received an invitation to host an intern in their office. I encourage all MPPs to seriously consider this wonderful opportunity and to support a program, a program that is not only helping us as backbenchers here do our jobs for our constituents but a program that is certainly helping some of the leaders of tomorrow learn first-hand about how government really works.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Today joining us in the members' gallery west is the Honourable Dr Stephen West, who is the provincial Treasurer in the province of Alberta. Would all the members join in welcoming our guest from Alberta.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the 13th report of the standing committee on government agencies. Pursuant to standing order 106(e), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROTECTION ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA PROTECTION CONTRE LA VIOLENCE FAMILIALE

Mr Flaherty moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 117,

An Act to better protect victims of domestic violence / Projet de loi 117, Loi visant à mieux protéger les victimes de violence familiale.

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

The Attorney General for a short statement?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): A minister's statement, Speaker.

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES SERVICES À L'ENFANCE ET À LA FAMILLE

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member for a short statement?

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): This bill flows from the very difficult circumstance in Sault Ste Marie over the last couple of years known as the Ken DeLuca sexual abuse case. Consequently, the Robins report made some recommendations, that the Children's Aid Society from Sault Ste Marie and the Ontario Children's Aid Society responded to, to suggest that one of the reasons that difficult circumstance was allowed to continue as long as it did was that there were not clear, delineated lines of responsibility and authority on who could do what.

The bill I've introduced today will go a distance to clarifying who's responsible and who can do what and give the Children's Aid Society clearer direction as to what they can do and give them the power to in fact do that. The bill ensures that child protection workers have the authority to investigate allegations of physical abuse and sexual molestation of children by teachers and other caregivers to apply for appropriate court orders. The disclosure to caregiving institutions of the results of the investigation and information in the child abuse register will be authorized.

The bill provides that the duty to report child abuse that is imposed on persons performing professional or official duties with respect to children will continue until the risk of abuse ends.

VISITORS

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Very briefly, I bring the attention of everybody in the House to a couple of esteemed visitors in the members' gallery. The reeve of the township of Michipicoten, more commonly known as Wawa, Mr Jim Aquino, and Laurie Bordeau, an occupational therapist. They are both on the health professionals recruitment tour to southern Ontario today.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion regarding private members' public business.

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

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that, notwithstanding standing order 96(d), the following change be made to the ballot list for private members' public business: that Mr Gerretsen and Mrs Dombrowsky exchange places in order of precedence such that Mr Gerretsen assumes ballot item 55 and Mrs Dombrowsky assumes ballot item 41.

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): People must be safe-and feel safe-on the streets, in their neighbourhoods and, above all, in their homes. As a government, we are committed to doing everything in our power to make our communities safer, to support and protect people, primarily women and children, who are at risk of domestic violence. We are committed to ensuring that abusers are held accountable for their crimes.

During the past five years, we have taken a leadership role in the area of domestic violence. We have created and expanded the domestic violence courts program and made it the largest and most comprehensive of its kind in Canada. We have expanded the victim/witness assistance program, victim crisis assistance and referral program, the supervised access program, and the SupportLink program.

I am proud of our achievements in making our justice system more responsive to the needs of victims of domestic violence. The justice system is a critical component in our battle against domestic violence because it holds abusers accountable for their actions.

But we know that services and support outside of the criminal justice system are important as well. That is why in 2000-01 our government will be spending about $72 million on shelters and counselling.

We have also committed another $15 million in the spring budget for transitional supports and counselling for women and children who have experienced domestic violence, as well as funding for programs to identify school children at risk of harm.

While these are important steps, we know that there is more work to be done. Everyone in this House is familiar with media reports of tragedies that have occurred as a result of domestic violence. As individuals and as legislators, we have a responsibility to do all that we can to prevent these tragedies and to keep families safe. That is why earlier today I introduced the Domestic Violence Protection Act. The proposed legislation is intended to reform and improve the effectiveness of restraining orders to better protect victims of domestic violence.

If passed, the Domestic Violence Protection Act would also help families at risk and victims of domestic violence to get a court order at any time of the day or night. It would make intervention orders faster to obtain and easier to enforce, and they would apply to a broader range of relationships, including people in dating relationships and family members who live together.

The Act sets out a clear definition of domestic violence and a list of specific prohibited activities and remedies that would make the new orders clear and enforceable. Our government's approach to restraining order reform goes even further by ensuring standardized order forms that clearly set out specific conditions for the alleged abuser, obtaining intervention orders faster through judges approving them and the court preparing them on the same day, and expanding counselling for alleged abusers to prevent further violence. These and other proposed changes complement, support and maximize the effectiveness of the legislation.

Keeping the people of this province safe is a battle no one level of government can win on its own. Each level of government has a role to play and a responsibility to ensure the safety of our communities, our families and our children. As I have demonstrated, our government takes that responsibility seriously. We want the federal government, as well, to live up to its responsibilities to keep our homes, streets and neighbourhoods safe.

Earlier this month, I called on the federal government to provide additional help to protect victims of domestic violence. I asked them to do this by making two small but important amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada. First of all, while breaches of intervention orders would be enforced under the Criminal Code, I asked the federal government to amend the Criminal Code to make breaching an intervention order a separate offence. This would provide victims with additional protection by allowing for more timely prosecution of cases and would send the clear and firm message that domestic violence is a serious offence.

Second, I asked Ottawa to reverse the onus of proof in bail proceedings in domestic violence cases so that accused individuals would have to show that their release would not endanger the victims.

These are changes that Ottawa can make easily and they are changes that would go a long way to protect victims of domestic violence. I'm sad to say that I have received no firm commitment from the federal government to make these changes.

Our reforms clearly show that the province of Ontario stands on the side of victims of crime. We believe they are important new additions to our government's continued efforts to support and protect victims of domestic violence and to hold abusers accountable. Restraining order reform is yet another action our government is taking so that the people of Ontario can be safe and feel safe on their streets, in their neighbourhoods and, above all, in their homes.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Responses?

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): Mr Speaker, let me be clear: Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals will support any step, however minuscule, in the direction towards assisting victims of domestic violence.

The problem is that this act would be better entitled

An Act to Try to Protect a Fraction of Victims of Domestic Violence, for it is but a fraction of the victims of domestic violence who actually come into contact with our criminal justice system. It is in fact a great, silent, tragic majority of domestic violence victims who are in no way touched by this act and who are in no way affected by any of the measures, by lip service or otherwise, by this government. They have, frankly, been abandoned by this government in their plight.

We hear reference by the Attorney General to media reports of tragedies that have occurred as a result of domestic violence. What of the media reports over the last five years of all those who never turned to the police unaffected by this act? I am not suggesting that this government is directly at fault for these tragedies, but we must ask ourselves the question: are we doing enough to prevent domestic violence, as opposed to talking about crackdowns? The answer is clearly that this government basically has done nothing.

This is the government that cut funding to women's shelters, of all things, when they came to office. This is the government that refuses to give to women the right to find out whether or not they've had a date rape drug slipped into their drink the night before. This is the government that's watched the rise of domestic violence over the last five years and done nothing but talk about coroner's inquests and watched the excellent joint committee report from Judge Baldwin sit on the desk of the Attorney General for more than 12 months before he actually started, now, paying lip service to it.

This is far too little. It is far too late. It is the tip of the iceberg of this cancer on our society. It is cold comfort to victims past, it is cold comfort to victims present and cold comfort to victims future of domestic violence.

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): Minister, I stood up in the House yesterday and asked your Premier why your government did not sign the accord last week outlining emergency measures to end violence against women in Ontario. Your Premier did not even send a minister to this meeting. He sent a parliamentary assistant, who admitted she had no authority. Your response at the morning press conference was that you, the Attorney General, did not know about this request and that you did not see these emergency measures outlined by the 81 women's groups.

In fact, your government's response was to reannounce last spring's funding for women's programs. What an insult to the women of this province.

Your announcement this morning, although overdue, is but a very small piece of the solution, as my colleague Michael Bryant has stated. Seventy-five per cent of abused women still do not report their abuse. Many women cannot access the legal aid to take advantage of the very changes you announced today. There are not enough shelters, contrary to what you said this morning, and women can't and don't want to stay in a shelter forever with their children.

Your government has washed its hands of the responsibility for social housing. The waiting lists are years long. Battered women in the north particularly have told me they are afraid to leave, afraid of the poverty, afraid for their children. But the crisis calls in the north have increased significantly.

Grants for public education from the Ontario Women's Directorate have also been cut back. Minister, surely you must realize how important prevention programs are. Counsellors were using these funds to go into schools and talk about the signs of abuse to female students and to warn male students and encourage them for anger management.

If you could only see some of my former patients in therapy, those who abused-that was a Freudian slip; they will abuse if they don't get therapy-those who observed their mothers being raped-yes, raped-by their partners in front of their eyes at times and how they had to dissociate and become other personalities just to escape that awful, horrific situation, I know you would have the heart and the mind to put back the money you cut in shelter programs and in counselling.

Forty women were killed by their partners or former partners last year. Please, I implore you, let's say "No more." This is Ontario. Let's say here, together, what we can do, what we need to do. We'll work with you to say zero tolerance and zero potential for domestic violence toward women in Ontario.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): To the Attorney General, I say we'll support your bill. Let's get it done and over with. It is OK, but it is virtually irrelevant to the vast majority of women who suffer abuse in this province.

So I want to use my time to speak to you, Premier, as the head of this government, as the Premier of this province who said he was going to make domestic violence a priority this session. I can't tell you how upsetting and insulting it is that your first announcement would be yet again another small step on the criminal justice side of things, when for months and months women have been trying to talk to your government to say that we need a response in terms of our community, our social and economic security. We need to prevent women from being abused.

We need to give women the power, in their own hands, to leave situations of abuse. The vast majority of women will never, no matter what you do, go to the criminal justice system.

Over 80 women's organizations from across this province tried to talk to your government last week. They spent a month in advance trying to set up meetings to have an opportunity to share with you their direction before they came here.

Interjection.

Ms Lankin: The minister for women's issues says that's not true. Those women are here. You confront them out in the hallway. They spent time from August on trying to get that meeting set up. They tried to coordinate it with all three parties. They brought forward their response.

Premier, the question to you is, are you going to invest the $350 million and implement the emergency measures in this fall sitting of the Legislature that will in fact do something to save women's lives? Forty women have died this past year. Every year that happens. You can't tell me that this bill that's being brought in is a response to the six women who have died in the tragedies of this summer.

When are you going to listen to women's own voices? The whole issue of domestic abuse is an issue of gender power. Why is it that when women who are on the front lines working on this issue, who are working with those women who are abused, who are bringing their voices forward, try to talk to this government, they're ignored? That's an issue of gender power. Listen to women's voices. They know what needs to be done.

The money they have asked for-the parliamentary assistant says that's a substantial amount of money-is 10% of your projected surplus this year. It can save women's lives. They are asking you to expand the help line. What good is a help line that's centred in one city that women from across the province can't access? What good is it when women call up and get a busy signal because there aren't enough telephone lines and aren't enough counsellors at the end to help them?

They're saying, expand the number of shelters and shelter beds. The minister today at the press conference said he believes there's enough to handle the emer gencies. That's not true. There are not enough shelter beds. There are not enough shelters.

You cut out second-stage housing programs. How are women, with their children, supposed to move on, get to a new life? You must reinstate that. You must ensure that community organizations, settlement programs, Franco-Ontarian programs have the resources to reach out to women in their own communities and help them, help them take the step to free themselves from domestic violence. Give women the power in their own hands and we can take care of ourselves; continue to put it in the hands of police and the courts and others and there will never be a satisfactory solution.

Every time I have raised this question in this House, every time I have asked any one of your ministers, I get the litany of responses back of all you've done in the criminal justice system. God bless you. Thank you for doing it. Let's move on and deal with the bigger issue. Not one of your ministers has ever, ever taken it upon themselves to give us an answer as to why you will not move on these recommendations. The community recommendations were embedded in the May-Iles recommendations. You say with great pride you've implemented so many of them. Just tell us why. Why won't you implement the community-based solutions from May-Iles?

You talk about the joint report and that you've implemented those recommendations. There were community recommendations there. Just tell us why: why have you ignored those recommendations? These women are here. They want you to sign the pledge. We will all work with you to implement those measures this fall. Let us do it together. Let us join together and save women's lives.

VISITOR

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know that you and the members would be pleased to know that Vance Badawey, mayor of Port Colborne-although not in the riding of Niagara Centre, still a fine community-is here in the visitors' gallery with us today.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): That is not a point of order.

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to speak on the 25th anniversary of the Franco-Ontarian flag.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

DRAPEAU FRANCO-ONTARIEN

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): La semaine du 25 septembre est une semaine bien spéciale pour les francophones de l'Ontario. Il me fait un immense plaisir de me joindre à mon chef, Dalton McGuinty, à mes collègues libéraux de cette Assemblée, ainsi qu'à mes amis francophones pour célébrer le 25 e anniversaire de notre drapeau.

Le drapeau fut dévoilé pour la première fois le 25 septembre 1975 à l'Université Laurentienne à Sudbury. Nous devons cette belle initiative à Gaétan Gervais, professeur et concepteur de ce beau drapeau, ainsi qu'à un groupe d'étudiants et étudiantes de cette université. J'aimerais rendre hommage à ces concepteurs qui ont su refléter l'esprit des communautés franco-ontariennes.

Monsieur le Président, saviez-vous que le blanc et le vert reflètent l'été et l'hiver d'Ontario ? Sur le drapeau, deux fleurs sont représentées : le trille et le lys. Le trille est l'emblème floral officiel de l'Ontario, tandis que le lys évoque la francophonie mondiale.

Depuis sa création, le drapeau franco-ontarien a su se faire connaître dans l'ensemble de notre belle province. Aujourd'hui, il est présent dans toutes les communautés francophones de l'Ontario. J'aimerais prendre ce moment pour dire aux 500 000 francophones de l'Ontario, soyons fiers de notre drapeau et de notre héritage culturel. Soyons fiers d'être Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes. Nous ne devons pas oublier que la population mondiale compte plus de 500 millions de francophones répartis dans une cinquantaine de pays.

Encore une fois, bon 25 e anniversaire et longue vie à la communauté francophone de l'Ontario. Vingt-cinq ans, ça se fête.

M. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-Baie James) : C'est avec plaisir qu'on a la chance aujourd'hui, de la part du caucus NPD, de déclarer ce que ça veut dire d'être francophone dans la province de l'Ontario et, plus important, ce que symbolise ce drapeau.

Mais je veux dire en commençant que le fait qu'on a besoin de demander en anglais le consentement unanime dans cette Assemblée me dit que nous les francophones avons un problème non seulement dans cette Assemblée mais, franchement, dans cette province.

Comme vous le savez, monsieur le Président, les francophones ont été majoritaires dans cette province beaucoup d'années passées dans notre histoire. Avec l'immigration et beaucoup d'autres situations qui sont arrivées, nous les francophones sommes devenus minoritaires dans notre propre province.

Je veux dire, sur le dernier point, que Gaétan Gervais il y a 25 ans, avec beaucoup d'autres individus à Sudbury, a créé ce premier drapeau franco-ontarien. Je vous propose, monsieur le Président, que moi-même comme député de Timmins-James Bay, et aussi comme critique des Affaires francophones pour le caucus NPD, je vais vous demander formellement à travers ce discours, et suivi par une lettre, que le premier drapeau franco-ontarien que M. Gervais a encore chez lui soit affiché ici quelque part à l'Assemblée où nous, les francophones, pouvons être fiers de regarder notre drapeau dans notre province qu'on appelle l'Ontario.

L'hon John R. Baird (ministre des Services sociaux et communautaires, ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones) : En tant que ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones, c'est avec un grand plaisir que je souligne aujourd'hui le 25 e anniversaire du drapeau franco-ontarien. Il y a 25 ans, le drapeau vert et blanc flottait pour la première fois au-dessus de l'Université Laurentienne à Sudbury. Il est un moment important dans l'histoire des francophones dans notre province et dans l'histoire de notre pays d'avoir un symbole d'identité maintenant très reconnu dans toutes les régions de la province.

Aujourd'hui le drapeau est présent partout dans les institutions francophones de la province, et représente encore une communauté pleine de vitalité et de dynamisme.

En terminant, je salue toute la communauté franco-ontarienne et je vous offre mes meilleurs voeux pour un avenir propice avec la majorité des francophones hors Québec au Canada. L'Ontario est une meilleure place à cause de notre population francophone.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I seek unanimous consent of the Legislature that a member from each party have the opportunity to make remarks about three former members who have passed away during this past summer: Mr Frank Miller, Mr Robert Welch and Dr Morton Shulman.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

FRANK MILLER

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I do rise today to speak of a man who was a member of this Legislature for 14 years, who once sat in this very chair, a man who served the people of Muskoka and of his beloved Bracebridge and of Ontario with integrity, with conviction, and with tremendous energy. I am, of course, referring to Frank Miller, the 19th Premier of the province of Ontario, who passed away on July 21 of this year.

Frank Miller was very much a man of his time, and in some ways he was a man ahead of his time. His decency, his honesty, his integrity, not to mention his famous plaid blazers, made him not only an outstanding but also a colourful representative of the people of Ontario. That decency and that honesty and that integrity earned Frank the admiration of his colleagues on both sides of this Legislature.

Frank never forgot that government exists to serve the people and not the other way around, and it was an important lesson and reminder that I would say members of my party needed to hear on a regular basis. Indeed we all need, from time to time, to hear this message.

That's why, throughout his long public career, Frank worked tirelessly for smaller and for more open and more accountable government. He believed that without strong leadership, government would continue to grow unchecked, just for the sake of government itself. He said-and this is a quote that I always liked-"There are no forces on government to make it grow smaller. They're all there to make it grow bigger." It takes a tremendous amount of energy to combat those forces.

That's why we are grateful for the leadership and support that Frank provided, leadership that helped keep the size of government in check. Here at Queen's Park and back home in Muskoka, Frank worked tirelessly to put people first, to make sure their tax dollars were spent wisely and that their government remained accountable to them. During his last days as Premier, Frank was asked what he would do next. Again, I quote. He said, "Almost all of us can do a lot more than we think we can, so I don't worry about the future."

I think if you reflect on that, many of us have probably found that to be the case; certainly most successful people have found that to be the case. It was certainly true when it came to Frank Miller.

Even after he left provincial politics, Frank then continued to contribute to the life and prosperity of the people of the region and of our province-I suggest to you there are probably not many examples of Premiers anywhere in the country who, upon retiring from provincial politics, went back into local politics-and continued to represent the people of Muskoka.

And, for awhile, he even found time to sell three or four cars a month. I mention that because we've all heard of that, but when he was asked about this, Frank said, "I've never been ashamed of what I do." He was a car salesman and he was never ashamed of where he came from or of what he did. He was indeed this small-town guy at heart.

On his last day in the Legislature, he wore one of his trademark plaid blazers and he received not one but two standing ovations. And yet, true to his roots, he tried to downplay the thanks, saying he preferred the nasty questions he was used to in question period. I think he was wrong there, but nonetheless, that's what Frank said.

Frank was always a devoted husband and father. Today our thoughts and prayers are especially with his wife, Ann, and his children, Lawrence, Ross, Norman and Mary Ann.

I'd like to add that Frank Miller had a stronger influence on me personally than I'm sure he realized, and my sense is that he probably had a strong and positive influence on many others in this province in a venturing kind of way, I think far more than Frank realized. And while he may no longer be with us, our memories of him will be with us always.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): Somewhere above me in some celestial space, Frank Miller is this very instant selling tickets for the Bracebridge rotary club. I know because for all the time I served with Frank, I, like every member of all caucuses, bought more tickets than we could ever remember from Frank S. Miller, P.Eng.

The Premier is absolutely right. Frank was an incomparable salesman. He didn't just sell tickets, he sold cars; he sold cars to Liberals, to New Democrats, to Tories, to prominent and less prominent members of the press gallery. He delivered the cars. In at least one case of which I have some knowledge, he put the licence plate on the car that he had just sold. The Liberals of my acquaintance kept going back to buy more cars, some of them from small-town Ontario. I used to wonder, "How do you explain buying your car up there in Muskoka when you get into your part of southwestern Ontario?"

Frank Miller was, I think I can say, about the most genial and popular member-Bob Welch running a very close second-in all the time that I served with him. There was an elfin quality about Frank Miller in the worst days here. Let me say to my friends in the government-you think you've got a bad brief to carry-you ought to have been here in 1974, 1975, 1976, when Frank Miller was out there in southwestern Ontario, and not very far from this place, trying to explain the case for closing Doctors Hospital and small rural hospitals in Grey, Bruce and Huron. Boy, it was not an easy can to carry.

It was in the midst of one of those awful moments when Frank had his first heart attack. No one railed more against Frank Miller in this place than the notorious Eddie Sargent, and if memory serves me correctly, Eddie took Frank to the hospital that day at Maple Leaf Gardens, I think in 1976, when Frank had that first heart attack.

I think that story says it all about Frank, that as controversial as some of the policies were, Frank was able to do the public's business reaching across the divide. I noticed in the obituaries that Stephen Lewis said-and by the way, in 1974, the small-c conservative Frank Miller avoided a very worrisome hospital strike in Toronto by working behind the scenes with Stephen Lewis to make sure it didn't happen. Frank was a Conservative. Frank was, to some degree, ahead of his time. He wasn't a Progressive Conservative, I suppose, in the sense of a Bill Davis or a John Robarts, and I say that honestly.

We knew Frank didn't approve the Suncor purchase. We knew what Frank thought about rent controls. But Frank, nonetheless, was able to make things happen, and the 1974 arrangement with Stephen Lewis to avoid the hospital strike ought to be a good reminder to all of us about what is sometimes required in the public interest.

I think most of you who knew Frank knew, because he would have told you, that he was a child of adversity and of poverty. His father died when he was 13. Frank knew tough times, and I say that because, Conservative as he was, in all the years I knew and worked with Frank Miller, I never heard Frank Miller demonize poor people. In those dark days of the late spring and early summer of 1985, when one of the great dynasties of the free world was slipping away, Frank Miller, to his enduring, everlasting credit, resisted advice being given to him from some quarters to uncork the poisonous vapours of sectarianism.

He said no, because Frank Miller understood, Conservative that he was, that there are times in the public interest when leadership demands rising above those things that divide us.

Frank Miller left in-14 years ago, the Premier said. I thought Frank was elected in 1971 and left in 1987. I'll have to check the record. The last six or eight months were tough. Frank didn't blame a soul. The Premier's right; he went back and he became the regional chair of Muskoka. I remember talking to Frank about that. He told me it was a more challenging time than he had expected.

To his wife Ann, to his kids about whom he was so proud, we express, as the Liberal caucus, our condolences. More importantly, we express our thanks and our appreciation.

In his wonderful eulogy delivered that day in July, Eric Dowd, who knew Frank Miller very well, rightly observed that Frank spent most of his public life knowing that he had a bad heart. As Eric Dowd observed, Frank Miller would probably still be alive today if he had put Frank Miller's interest first. The Frank Miller I knew and liked so very much was someone, Conservative as he was, who always put the public interest first. And that's a legacy of which he should be very proud and it's a legacy to which each and every one of us should aspire.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I did not serve in the Legislature with Frank Miller, but in spite of that he's somebody I got to know. When I was a student at the University of Toronto in the mid-1970s, this actually was an entertaining place to come to at night-members actually carried on some sort of collegial relationships-so I used to enjoy coming here and sitting up in the visitors' gallery watching.

Occasionally members would go out for supper and then come back for a very late sitting having had too much to drink, having had too good a time. I remember one particular occasion when Frank Miller, who was sitting in the cabinet of a Conservative government, took particular pleasure in challenging some of the members of the opposition to get to their feet, if they could, to speak. I won't mention any names; some of it might come back to haunt those close to me. But it was a particularly intriguing evening to watch Frank Miller taunting all and sundry in the Liberal benches and the NDP benches, "Get to your feet, if you can, and speak." Of course, most didn't; some tried.

I first met him face to face when he came to my hometown in I believe it was the fall of 1984. He came to support the Conservative candidate. The Liberal member of the Legislature had stepped down to take an appointment from the Conservative government and Frank Miller had come to support the Conservative candidate. I was with a group of people leading a protest on behalf of the Association for Community Living, the workers at which had not a pay increase for about five years, if this sounds familiar. I actually had a face-to-face meeting with Frank Miller. It was quite pleasant.

He put up with the protest, the picket signs and shouting quite well, and more or less said, "This is all part of politics."

I got to meet him, not even a year later, about six months later, when he came to my community in the run-up to the provincial election, and by then I was the NDP candidate. He was walking down the street and he was introduced to me as the NDP candidate, and he looked at me and said, "You again. Why don't you get a real job?" That was the kind of humour of Frank Miller. He was a very funny person on the occasions when I met him, and particularly the occasions when I saw him in the House.

But that was one side of him. The other side of him was someone who was tremendously serious about his work. Here is someone who, in his 14 years in the Legislature, was the Treasurer, the Minister of Health, Minister of Economics, Industry and Trade, Natural Resources, and he took on most of those jobs at a time when it was particularly tough to take on those jobs. He, I think, in the mind of Bill Davis, was someone who could be counted upon to handle the tough jobs under the toughest of circumstances.

I think it's a measure of the kind of person he was that, when he was asked about his life, he said, "The smartest decision I've made in my life was to marry my wife of 50 years." I think that's one measure of him.

The other measure was following his loss of government. It must have been particularly difficult for him because it had been a Conservative dynasty for over 40 years, and then the failure in the 1985 election and the Liberal-New Democrat accord following that. It must have been a very difficult time. But when he was asked about it, he wasn't bitter. He said, "No, this is public life. This is politics. This is how decisions are made." I think that's a real measure of the person.

On behalf of New Democrats, on behalf of New Democrats who are here now and those who served with him in the past, and personally, I want to say that Ontario has obviously lost someone who made a tremendous contribution to the province. We want to offer our condolences to his family but to also say he was someone we all respected very much.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'd like to thank all of the members for those kind words and I will make sure that the families receive copies of today's Hansard.

It is now time for oral questions. Oh, I'm sorry. Minister of Education.

ROBERT WELCH

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): It's very much a privilege for me stand on behalf of my caucus and say some words in memory of another very fine legislator here, Mr Bob Welch. While I don't have the memories that some would have as contemporaries of his in the caucus, I certainly remember Mr Welch, as one editorial writer called him, a jack of many ministries, and when you looked at all the different ministries, the posts he held under three different premiers, he certainly could be described as that.

I very much remember him from when I was a staffer here in those days, and I think his first memory of me, unfortunately, will be when I left a large, black briefcase in his office which his secretary mistook for a bomb and they had to clear out the whole wing of the building, including his office, and disrupted his meetings. So he probably had some rather interesting memories of me, but I do remember him very much as a minister who believed in public service, who believed in doing good for the people he represented.

He was first elected in 1963 and was there until 1985-a very long and distinguished career. He had just about every ministry you want to name: Minister of Citizenship, Minister of Education, social development, housing, Attorney General, secretary for justice, culture, recreation, government House leader, energy, minister responsible for women's issues and, yes, was one of the first Deputy Premiers, as one of my colleagues has just mentioned. He served exceedingly well in all those roles.

He certainly was a man of modest roots. He talked about how his father, who was a railroad brakeman, had worked hard for their family and how he himself had taken odd jobs to pay his way through university. He sold fruits and vegetables at one stage in his career and he said when he knocked on doors he was amazed at how many people remembered that he had done that many years before. His slogan, I understand, was, "Summer, winter, rain or shine, we're at your service all the time." I'm not sure if that was for the vegetables or for one of his political campaigns; he was not clear. He came from modest roots.

He came from a community that instilled in him the value of community service and it was something that he very much put back, not only in his political career but also with his family, with his community and very much as the chancellor of Brock University, a post he took up after he left political life.

I had the privilege of being at that memorial, listening to many of the people there talk about, even though he was chancellor, the personal interest he was able to take in every student who came before him to get his or her graduation certificate and how he knew them very personally, and that certainly speaks well to him.

In closing, I would just like to say that he was once described by a reporter in the Globe and Mail who wrote: "Mr Welch sounds almost too good to be true-the clean-cut, all-Canadian guy making good in the service of his country. Mr Welch's highly developed sense of public duty keeps him working 16 hours a day."

Our thoughts go out to his children, Mary-Jayne, Beth and Rob, and the grandchildren at the memory of a very fine and distinguished public servant in this Legislature.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I want to associate myself with the remarks of the Minister of Education and I'm sure the thoughts of all members of the Legislative Assembly as I have the honour to pay tribute to Robert Welch who, in our part of the province of Ontario-and I know this is difficult in the Anglican Church-has reached the state of virtual sainthood in terms of how people feel about him and the role he played in our community and indeed in the province of Ontario.

Bob, to those of you who knew him, was small in stature, I suppose you would say, in physical stature, but in terms of his contribution to this House he was most assuredly a giant. In terms of his contribution really to the country as a whole, one could say the same thing.

He was a natural choice for Deputy Premier of this province-extremely loyal to Premier William Davis, well liked within the Conservative caucus and indeed among members of the Legislature, and easily able to assume the mantle of leadership whenever he was called upon to do so, and he handled those duties in an exemplary fashion.

He was one of the last genuine orators in the House. We have a lot of people who make some interesting and good speeches in this House, but Bob was what you would call a genuine orator. His speeches almost always were sprinkled with good humour, which would be appreciated, again, by representatives of all three parties in this Legislature. They were always oozing sincerity, because Bob most of all was an extremely honest and sincere individual, and they were always delivered with a good deal of enthusiasm: hands waving, smile on his face, voice rising at the appropriate time.

He handled a number of different portfolios, as the Minister of Education has indicated. I thought there were about a dozen portfolios that he had at one time or another, and he handled them extremely well. He was often put into trouble spots, hot spots in government, because he could cool off those hot spots with the manner in which he carried out his responsibilities as a minister. He was agile. He was skilful in dealing not only with his own cabinet colleagues and with the general public, but even with the members of the opposition, who from time to time could be quite vociferous in their opposition to government policy.

As House leader-and those who have served as House leader would appreciate this. The Premier has, as have others. Bob was government House leader in his particular case. He handled the responsibilities extremely well. He knew that it was important to make the House work as it should. He had a great liking for the House, had a great respect for the rules of the Legislature and the importance of this not simply as a debating society, but as a Legislature which made the most important decisions affecting this province. He respected the viewpoint of the opposition, he respected the responsibilities of government, even though he in his lifetime had not served on the opposition benches.

Bob had a wonderful sense of humour, a self-deprecating sense of humour. He always took his responsibilities seriously. He never took himself seriously and was always an individual who would put himself down on any occasion, particularly when he was introduced with a long litany of cabinet posts that he had held. He would simply apologize to the audience, after being introduced, for not being able to hold any job for any particular length of time. That was the kind of humour that he had.

He was dedicated to his constituents in Lincoln, in Brock, in St Catharines-Brock-the ridings change names but they were generally St Catharines and some of the surrounding area-and was virtually unbeatable in terms of the electoral process. That was because he drew support from people from every economic stratum, from every social position in life and regardless of political affiliation. Bob Welch was able to overcome any of the opposition that might come from those who are partisan because he was so dedicated to his constituency and to his constituents, and quite frankly because he was such a nice man, a nice individual.

He was genuinely interested in people. You know how often we ask, "How are you?" When Bob Welch asked how somebody was, he really wanted to know. He was genuinely concerned about our families, about our friends, about people in the Legislature who had gone on to other things in life. You could just sense in what he said that he genuinely cared about people, and he would write a note later on to somebody to cheer them up at the appropriate time.

He was a moderate, a consensus-builder, one who listened to other people's points of view and accepted them from time to time and at least respected them. He never sought a confrontation. I can't think of any occasion in which Bob Welch sought a confrontation. I sat in the Legislature on the opposition side when he was on the government side. We didn't work against each other; we worked together for the good of the constituents. That's because that's the way Bob Welch wanted it to be.

He was very kind to me as an individual. I'm a person on the other side who ultimately, I suppose, in the game of politics, wants to defeat the governing party. But Bob always saw the people who surrounded him in other constituencies as being people who were interested in working for our part of the province and treated all of us extremely well in that regard.

Service with Bob Welch is what was expected. There was no question that the Welch family was going to provide services. Bob Welch, from a very young age till his last days of life, was providing service to his fellow citizens in his constituency and across the province and country. A devoted Anglican, he held senior positions in the church. He was a chancellor of the Anglican Diocese of Niagara from 1965 to 1992. Even when he had political responsibilities, Bob was very devoted to the Anglican Church, and he never left his compassion on the steps of the church as he left. He always took it with him, because Bob was ultimately an extremely compassionate individual, always down to earth.

To paraphrase Rudyard Kipling, he did walk among kings and always kept that common touch. He could relate to people of all backgrounds within his constituency. As chancellor of Brock University, the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, Dianne Cunningham, dealt with Bob. She was there the last time I got to speak to Bob Welch, and perhaps the last time she got to speak to him, when there was an announcement of the expansion of Brock University.

It wasn't an actual sod-turning-or it may have been a sod-turning-but is was a celebration at the time. There was Bob in the front row. My gosh, he had played a tremendous role with Brock University over the years. But he wasn't a person who would thrust himself forward for the credit; he was a person who simply knew in his own heart that he had contributed greatly to Brock University and to its students as he contributed so much.

One story I can tell you is that Bob was the chairman of the board of education-they were called chairmen in those days; now chair of the board of education-in St Catharines. He was the Conservative candidate in 1963. He came to Grantham High School. I was president of the student council. I had the job of thanking Bob-they made me do this-after he made his speech. You could see there was just a little bit of partisanship creeping in, because I held up the clipboard and I was reading the thank you on it, and on the back was a bumper sticker for his Liberal opponent at the time. Bob found that extremely amusing.

Bob had invited me before that to his nomination meeting. I attended to watch; some suggested to spy, but I was only there to watch and observe. He encouraged me and so many others to become involved in the political process.

There were 800 people at the funeral. Everyone who could possibly make it to the funeral did. They said it was a who's who of Ontario politics and law and business and so on, but listen, a lot of other people who would describe themselves as ordinary folks in our community were there to pay tribute to Bob Welch. I can't think of anybody who was respected as much as he was.

Bill Davis said something about him that I'll conclude with, because Bill Davis gave quite a eulogy, along with some other people, Dr David Atkinson, Archdeacon Ian Dingwall and his son Rob Welch, who was very proud of him. Bill Davis said this of Bob Welch:

"We both shared the same point of view, that we entered public life not for the power perhaps it would give us but more importantly for the responsibility it holds upon us to do those things that were right and we felt were of interest to the people we were to serve. Power was never the motivating thing for Robert Welch. It was service, responsibility, sensitivity and decency." That was Bob Welch.

To members of his family, to Rob, to Beth, to Mary-Jayne, to the grandchildren, to all who were friends of Bob Welch, we extend our sympathy and our admiration. On behalf of my colleagues in the Ontario Liberal caucus, we send our very best wishes to the family. We know they will be proud for their lifetime of the service that their father and their grandfather provided to the people of Ontario.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I consider it a distinct honour to say a few words on behalf of the NDP caucus in remembering Robert Welch, and although I only met him once, I'll refer to him as Bob Welch because everything I've heard about his reputation tells me that's the way he would want it.

He had a long, long, illustrious career. It hasn't been mentioned yet, but at 16 he was a junior mayor of St Catharines. I guess that's where he was bitten with the political bug and the desire and the need to serve.

As I was listening to the members speak before I rose in my place, I thought to myself, "Is there a one of us in this place who doesn't, for at least a moment when we take time to do this, wonder what will be said about us when the time comes?" It can be a scary thought.

But the fact that Bob Welch has such a reputation-in commenting on former Premier Miller, the member from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke used, as a comparator, Robert Welch-I think that to have that level of sincerity and to have a reputation so strong, so powerful and that leaves such an imprint on this place has got to be one of the finest rewards that any of us could have for the time and the service that we spend in this place.

Bob Welch, it has been mentioned, was a troubleshooter, put into very difficult portfolios. He sat as a minister in a dozen. I don't know if people realize that of those 12 ministries, he served as minister eight of nine years. That's enough to flatten just about any politician I've ever met politically. He not only survived it but seemed to thrive on it.

I note also in researching Bob Welch that he was given the difficult task of introducing the first government lottery in 1975 as the new Minister of Culture and Recreation. This was a very difficult decision and a very difficult process for him because on a personal level, his involvement in his church and his deep beliefs told him that lotteries were wrong. But obviously he felt that public service and the priority of providing the best service that he could as an individual was more important.

I've watched some of my own cabinet colleagues when they've struggled with very difficult moral decisions where there is no clear right or wrong, where you're pulled between on the one side public service and on the other side personal beliefs. I think it says a lot about Bob Welch that he felt enough about public service that he accepted that challenge and did an excellent job.

There aren't very many politicians these days in Canada-the one that comes to mind is former Premier Bob Rae-who speak with pride about being a politician, who speak with pride about the opportunity and the honour of public service and the importance of public service and the importance of a politician's role in our democracy. Bob Welch believed in that, and believed in it so strongly that here we are today reflecting on the fact that one of his greatest achievements was to send that message, not just through words but through action.

I met Bob Welch once when I was a minister, during one of our more difficult times. No one else was around. When you're going through tough times-and I'm sure that current cabinet ministers can appreciate this-there's a good chance that somebody who's active in politics is going to take a moment, the opportunity to go up one side of you and down the other. I hadn't met Bob and didn't know a lot about him and didn't know really what to expect. His only concern in the few moments that we had was how I was coping; a personal question from one politician, from one citizen, to another: "How's it going?

How are you handling it? Are you taking care of yourself? Are you spending time with family? Are you doing the things that will make you a better politician, a better minister and therefore provide better public service and therefore give us a better province?" To leave that kind of impression on any of us is a phenomenal legacy to leave behind.

It is with great pride that I offer our condolences in the NDP caucus to the family members of Bob Welch, and I say to Ontarians that regardless of political stripes, Ontario could use a lot more Bob Welches.

MORTON SHULMAN

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Members will know that a short time ago Dr Morton Shulman passed away. I wanted to say a few words about Dr Shulman, a former member of the NDP caucus. There are some members who served with Dr Shulman, so they will have first-hand experience with what I'm about to talk about.

Morton Shulman was indeed an unusual individual. He was in fact a Conservative. He worked to elect Conservatives to this Legislature, but he was also the chief coroner of Ontario. When he couldn't get the Conservative government of the day to move on some of his recommendations and when they fired him as chief coroner, he decided he would be a thorn in their side in some other way, so he got elected as a New Democrat. I'm sure that every day after that the Conservatives in this Legislature wished they had never fired him, because during the whole time that he was in this Legislature, he was nothing but torment to the Conservative government of the time.

What could describe Morton Shulman? Populist, loud, brash, outspoken, marching to a different drummer. In this place he bent every one of the rules, and when he couldn't bend a rule, he simply broke it. Speaker, I know that some days you look like you are under great stress in this place but, believe me, I used to come here and witness Dr Shulman in his activities, and you have a very easy task.

Some of the things that Morton Shulman accomplished: while he was chief coroner he forced the Ministry of Transportation to enact tougher regulations on lifejackets for small boats. He succeeded in having the government regulate car safety. He was so successful in some of his work that they made a television show about him. The series Wojeck is based upon Morton Shulman, the coroner who goes everywhere, who raises all the issues, who is not afraid of the government of the day even if they threaten to fire him, so they made a television series about him.

He had his own television show as well. It was called The Shulman File. When he wasn't raising issues in the Legislature, he simply took over the journalism airwaves directly. Some people believed that he actually created what is now called confrontational journalism, that Morton Shulman was the source and the creator of that. Some say he spent his whole time living on the edge, that he was always on the edge of controversy, that he was always on the edge of another battle over another issue.

But I think we need to reflect on what he accomplished: what he accomplished as coroner, what he accomplished in this Legislature in terms of raising issues and forcing the government of the day to respond and what he accomplished in terms of everyday life.

After he left politics he didn't stop raising issues. He fought a lengthy battle in Canada for the approval of Deprenyl, a drug which is now widely used in the treatment of Parkinson's disease. At the time it was being used in Europe but it had not been approved for use in Canada. He took the cause on single-handedly and accomplished that too.

So, on behalf of New Democrats-and we had our engagements with Dr Shulman as well. I'm sure Stephen Lewis, if he were able to be here, would tell lengthy stories about his occasions with Dr Shulman. I think we all need to recognize someone who in the course of his life here in politics as a civil servant, and then finally as someone who went on to journalism after this, accomplished an incredible amount and accomplished it over a number of fields.

I think we can say that this is someone who was never afraid of a battle and who won most of the battles he took on one way or another.

We offer our condolences to his wife and his family and once again we offer our respect to an incredible individual and an incredible parliamentarian.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): I rise to speak on behalf of my colleagues here to say a few words about Dr Morton Shulman. I share the sense of inadequacy that the leader of the third party mentions when trying to find the right words to describe Dr Shulman. I will be eternally gratefully for the fact that I was not serving as a cabinet minister when he was in opposition.

As a staffer around Queen's Park, I got to witness first-hand his style in this Legislature. His questions ranged from the provocative to the outrageous. Some of his activities in this chamber could also be described as outrageous. The leader of the third party says that the Speaker is very lucky not to have Dr Shulman in the House, and I would say so is the leader of the third party not to have Dr Shulman in his caucus. He was a thorn in everyone's side, fighting very hard-

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Ecker: The third party is pointing to their colleague from Niagara Centre. With no offence to the member from Niagara Centre, I think on your most colourful day Dr Shulman was at least a match if not-

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): You shouldn't have said that.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I shouldn't have said that. It's now going to be a challenge.

He was known, yes, for fighting for the little guy and fighting for what he believed in and making change and making it happen.

He was also-this was in a different era, I should say-concerned about security around the Legislature. His way of making the point was to actually walk into the building with a weapon which he unwrapped in the Chamber, to the great consternation to the members of the government who were convinced that this was it, that he had finally crossed the barrier. It was, I'll say, amusing to watch many cabinet ministers of the day diving under their desks. He did make the point and, as usual with him, it was effective if a tad unorthodox and a little colourful.

He described himself once as "a skinny Jewish kid in a WASP north Toronto area who was no good at sports and too good at school." Mr Bradley across the way talked about orators in this place. I don't think I would have used the word "oratory," but he certainly had a very colourful way to describe the issues he was talking about at the time.

Yes, he did run, he did serve as a member of the NDP, but he was also known for his incredible ability to be financially successful at whatever he did. It was one of his rather interesting talents. Having lost $400 on the stock market, he got his revenge by becoming overwhelmingly successful financially. He wrote a book, Anyone Can Make a Million, and wrote another book, Anyone Can Still Make a Million, just to rub it into all those people who didn't think he had the ability to do that.

He was someone who I think will be sadly missed in the politics of the day at whatever he turned his hand. He had an impact as a physician, he had an impact as a coroner and he certainly had an impact as an elected official. Even in-I will use the word loosely-retirement, his fight for those who suffer from Parkinson's I think also very much had an impact.

Just in closing, a comment that was in one of the obituaries written about him at the time of his passing. His son-in-law said, "He was living four times the life of any normal mortal. Contemplating doing half of what he did would exhaust me-he lived at a speed which is different than the normal mortals I know."

He certainly was no normal mortal, and the thoughts of our caucus, as with everyone in this House, go out to his son, Dr Geoffrey Shulman, his daughter, Dianne Saxe, his eight grandchildren and his former wife, Gloria Bossin.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I want to congratulate the Minister of Education, because I think we all hope that when our time comes whoever gets up to eulogize us gets as close to the truth as one should under these circumstances.

How do we talk about Morty Shulman? Well, I think the truth has to be acknowledged that there probably has never been in the post-war period a more colourful and more controversial member of this Legislature than Dr Morton Shulman.

I beg to differ with the leader of the third party. Morty didn't just torment Tories; he tormented the New Democrats. I well remember New Democrats-Morty left in 1975, and I think of the late Mr Speaker Stokes, for example, telling me about what it was like to be whip of a caucus where Morty was part of the band. Morty could torment, and he did, always with good intent.

I was thinking as well that we are a very antiseptic place these days, some would even say banal. Morty Shulman reminds us of a time when the Ontario Legislature had really outrageous characters, and he was leader of that band, ably assisted by the likes of Elmer Sopha, Frank Drea, Eddie Sargent and a few others-colourful, iconoclastic, independent. Morty wasn't a Tory, he wasn't a New Democrat; he was an independent. He led the Morty Shulman party.

In 1966 he wrote a best-selling book, Anyone Can Make a Million, and then looked across the political landscape and decided to join the NDP. He did that. And what was his first question when he got up here in 1968? A question to Bob Welch: "Are you going to lay charges against E.P. Taylor and the Canadian Brewing Co for their failure to comply with certain provisions of the Corporations Act?"

Janet was right to talk about the day in 1975 when, to make a point about the laxity of Ontario's gun laws, he went out and bought a semi-automatic rifle and brought it in here, to the shock and horror of everyone. He did more than that. In 1973 the morality squad decided to outlaw and ban The Happy Hooker. Do you know what Morty did? Morty decided to buy several boxes of the famous book, put them on sale in his Queen's Park office, offered members a 10% discount, and sold out in no time. He actually did that. He tells the story about how the author called to offer some consideration-his story, not mine.

He was bright, he was iconoclastic, he was intensely controversial. You either liked Morty or you didn't, and there were many in both camps. He was someone who was part Teddy Roosevelt, part John Diefenbaker and part Don Quixote. One day he was chasing the Mafia, the next day he was chasing Bay Street brokers. One day he was chasing the Minister of Health, the next day he was chasing the Toronto Telegram. Every day with Morty was a day of discovery.

There were lots of broken pieces as he tilted at windmills, and there were lots of positive benefits for individuals. He tells the story of the day his daughter applied for and obtained employment with the Ontario government. When the word got out that his very bright, able daughter, Dianne, was about to be hired by the Ontario government, the said Ontario government went apoplectic. It wasn't until Darcy McKeough, the responsible minister for the department about to make the hire, intervened and said, "If she makes the test of the interview, then we will hire her." She was a very able servant of the Ontario government for years, and may be still working for us, I don't know.

I just want to say in conclusion that, in the annals of Ontario legislative history, when people think about characters, colour and controversy, Morty Shulman will certainly lead that hit parade.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank all of the members for their comments, and, again, we'll make sure each of the families receive copies of today's Hansard.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would seek unanimous consent to complete question period in total for 60 minutes, notwithstanding that we will bump up against 4 pm, and that then we go to orders of the day.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE REFORM

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. I believe that one of the most important things we can do through this Legislature is to ensure that each and every Ontario family has access to the best quality care and, in particular, emergency room care, that they can absolutely depend on.

I don't know what you believe, but I can tell you what you have done on that score. You closed 5,700 hospital beds, and you have put nothing in their place. You promised us 20,000 long-term-care beds, but not a single one is up and running.

The amount of time that our emergency rooms are turning people away is up 66% this past year alone. There was a time when we experienced crises in our emergency rooms on a cyclical basis, maybe every January of every year. But now it turns out that virtually every day of the year we are having difficulties, in fact a crisis, a real and genuine crisis, in our emergency rooms.

My question to you, Premier: why are you continuing to fail Ontario families when it comes to ensuring they've got access to reliable, dependable emergency room service?

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

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I really find it quite surprising that you would make the comments that you do, because you know full well that this is a long-standing issue. In fact, it was the Liberal government that first had the headlines in the papers and offered absolutely no solutions. In fact, November 1986: "Overcrowding these patients on stretchers ... patients wait in line for hospital beds." You were the government that stopped-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Would the Minister of Health take her seat. We're going to start off bright and early. This is the last warning for the member for Windsor West. You can't right off the bat, when she immediately starts standing up, begin to shout at her right across. I've said on numerous occasions that heckling is OK if you say a few words back and forth, hopefully with some humour like some of the members do, but you cannot get up immediately when somebody gets up and just shout across for the entire time. This is her last warning.

I'm going to begin with each and every member. Again, I want to stress it, and I've said it numerous times. Heckling is OK in this place, but we are not going to tolerate people just continually shouting and talking across to the other side. This isn't a case of trying to cut down the other side and not hear answers. It's not going to happen. Last warning to her.

Sorry for the interruption to the Minister of Health.

Hon Mrs Witmer: As I just said, in the paper as recently as today, Harold Fisher, assistant director of the emergency department at Mount Sinai said, "This is a very old problem. It is at least 10 years old. It is not a new issue."

I guess what is new today is the fact that while it was a problem for the Liberals and you had no solutions, we set up an emergency task force involving the nurses, involving the doctors, involving the ambulance drivers, and involving the hospitals. Since 1998, those individuals have come forward with their very best advice. In fact, they continue to meet today in order to ensure that we have a comprehensive emergency room strategy.

Mr McGuinty: When are you going to have the guts to admit that our emergency rooms are worse off today than they've ever been before in the history of this province? Minister, you said you were going to make things better and, by the way, we are in the sixth year of the Harris government. You said you were going to make things better and you closed our hospitals, you shut down our emergency rooms, you fired our nurses and then you refused to put in place and get up and running long-term-care beds. That's what you did. This crisis is the result of your gross mismanagement and incompetence because of restructuring health care in Ontario.

Now I understand that this Sunday you're going to close down the emergency room in the Wellesley Hospital and in a few months from now you're going to shut down the emergency room in Women's College Hospital. It seems to me that the first thing you should do when you find yourself in a hole and you want to get out is to stop digging. I'm now asking you to stop the emergency room closures in Ontario so that we can begin to safely accommodate those Ontarians who find themselves inside ambulances with no place to go.

Hon Mrs Witmer: The Leader of the Opposition really doesn't get it. They had no solutions when they were in office and they have no solutions today. That's why we've undertaken the comprehensive restructuring of our health system. That's why we know, in order to address the pressures in emergency rooms, that you need to construct 20,000 long-term-care beds. By the way, it was your government that stopped the construction in 1988 and there were 10 years of no long-term-care construction. That's why we've announced an investment of $1.2 billion, not only into long-term care but into community services.

In fact, we have the highest per capita amount of money being spent. That's why our government is the first one in the history of Canada to announce primary care reform. That's what it means to have a comprehensive emergency room strategy, and when we want to talk about Wellesley-

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

Mr McGuinty: Minister, in 1995 in Ontario hospitals we had a 90% occupancy rate. Today we have a 96% occupancy rate. That means there's only a 4% cushion to accommodate ambulances which are showing up with people in desperate need of medical attention. Experts tell us we should have a cushion of 15% so that we can comfortably accommodate people who are showing up in our ambulances.

There's a way we can relieve this pressure and avoid the disaster. Mark my words, we are going to have a huge disaster in this province in January if you don't do something. Here's a proposal: let's put 1,600 acute care beds back into the system so that we can comfortably accommodate all of those people who are otherwise going to be shut out of hospitals which they should be able to depend on and which you have been shutting down on them.

Hon Mrs Witmer: The Leader of the Opposition knows that not only have we developed a comprehensive emergency pressure solution, but we have done so with our stakeholders. This is not advice that unilaterally is being presented. The advice we are receiving is from the hospitals, it's from the doctors, it's from the nurses, it's from the ambulance drivers. It is a comprehensive strategy. We have invested $620 million.

Let me read a letter from Ron Kelusky from Toronto Emergency Medical Services. He said on September 26, "You should know that every patient transported by an ambulance within the city of Toronto is found a medically safe and appropriate destination prior to leaving the scene of the call. In general, the entire system works very well and we continue to work with the ministry and the hospitals to better respond to the surges in demand whenever this may happen." We will continue to work with our-

The Speaker: The minister's time is up.

SAFE DRINKING WATER PLAN

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is also to the Premier. I believe that one of the things we need urgently now is a safe drinking water plan so that we can guard the health and well-being of Ontarians by protecting their water, but you haven't been doing your job in that regard.

Today Dr Murray McQuigge-he's the medical officer of health for Walkerton, that genuine hero who blew the whistle on the toxic water that was coming out of their taps-said that your new regulations are inadequate to protect our water. He said specifically that your new regulations would not prevent another Walkerton from happening. That's what Dr McQuigge said.

Your Environmental Commissioner calls your actions on groundwater "fragmented and uncoordinated." He said, "The ministries don't have a publicly recognizable strategy." All of this is telling us that today in Ontario, post-Walkerton, post-six deaths, we still don't have a safe drinking water plan. Premier, will you table that plan here and now today?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Minister of the Environment can answer that one.

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): We have a tough new regulation in place to protect the drinking water for the people in this province. We also have Operation Clean Water. The objectives of Operation Clean Water are to ensure that we have tough, clear regulations in place that have the full force of law in our province. Operation Clean Water also calls for effective inspection and enforcement taking place within all the waterworks facilities in the province-630. It calls for tough new penalties for non-compliance and also delivers strategic investments and delivery practices to ensure that they're put in place to protect drinking water for everyone in Ontario.

Mr McGuinty: I appreciate the reassurances offered by the Minister of the Environment, but if I have to choose between Dr Murray McQuigge and this minister, I'll side with Dr McQuigge, who says you don't have a drinking water safety plan in Ontario.

Do you know what we did? We got hold of the freedom-of-information people. We sent over a letter, and they came back with a response and they said-and this is their wording-"After a thorough search of the water policy branch, we note that the groundwater strategy document is not finalized." What we've discovered from your own people is that in fact there is no safe drinking water plan today in Ontario.

This is the sixth year of the Mike Harris government. This is some four months after Walkerton; four months after we buried six people. I'm asking you now, Minister, when are you going to deliver to us in this Legislature a safe drinking water plan?

Hon Mr Newman: I say to the Leader of the Opposition you're wrong again. We have Operation Clean Water in effect right now. We also have the tough new regulations. We also have a consultation out there with small waterworks. But if you say you won't listen to me, perhaps you'll listen to the newest member of your caucus who said, "I think the Minister of the Environment needs to receive some kudos, frankly, for some of the-

Interjection.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Shut your mouth.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Minister take his seat and stop the clock. The member will have to apologize for that.

Mr Bartolucci: I apologize.

The Speaker: And withdraw it, please.

Mr Bartolucci: I withdraw.

The Speaker: Thank you very much.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The tempers going back and forth on both sides aren't helpful. I say to some of the members that tough questions can be asked-

Interjections.

The Speaker: When we yell back and forth, personal insults don't do anybody any good. In situations like this, and I'll use the example of the leader of the official opposition, he asks very tough, passionate questions but he doesn't sit there and yell across to the other side. That's what question period is all about. This yelling across and personal insults like that are not helpful to anybody. I would ask all members to think before they yell things like that across again.

Minister of the Environment.

Hon Mr Newman: I was pointing out to the Leader of the Opposition what the newest member of his caucus said about the new drinking water protection regulation in this province. This is what Ted McMeekin, the MPP for Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot, said: "I think the Minister of the Environment needs to receive some kudos, frankly, for some of the action that has taken place for putting the water regulations in place." That's what he said. Why doesn't he listen to his own caucus?

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Someone who lends some real insight into how we should view the minister and his commitments is the Environment Commissioner himself. This is what he said about the minister: "On at least two occasions, the Ministry of the Environment has appeared to deliberately mislead the public by announcing management measures that were not carried out." He's telling us that you did not do what you said you would do. This is your own Environment Commissioner. He says that you are misleading the public.

I'd ask people watching this to understand the gravity of that kind of a criticism coming from that individual holding that office. What he's telling us is that you are continuing to fail the people of Ontario. You are continuing to fail to protect their health by protecting their water.

I'm asking you again, on their behalf, when are you going to table in this House a real and genuine safe drinking water plan?

Hon Mr Newman: The Leader of the Opposition would know that last Friday he would have received a report on the update of Operation Clean Water. If you didn't get a copy, I'll send you another copy. But all members would have received copies of Operation Clean Water.

Operation Clean Water is our plan to ensure that there are tough, clear standards in place with the full force of law to protect drinking water in our province. It calls for the effective inspection of all 630 facilities. In fact, by the end of this year, all 630 municipal waterworks will be inspected in our province. Well over half of them have been done to date. We also have tough penalties coming in place through the force of law with new drinking water regulations. We also have a commitment of at least $240 million to the OSTAR program to supply smaller municipalities with assistance with waterworks.

The Speaker: New question?

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Is the Premier coming back into the-

The Speaker: I don't believe we see him. He may go on to another question. I don't believe he is.

Mr Hampton: In that case I'll-

The Speaker: Stop the clock.

Hon Frank Klees (Minister without Portfolio): On a point of order, Mr Speaker, in response to this comment regarding the Premier: I don't think any one of us here anticipated that we would be taking as long as we did for the tributes. We understand; we support it. I do think it's important that the House recognizes that the Premier had some commitments.

The Speaker: I thank the member for his comments. I will also say this: It isn't helpful when we have personal comments. That particular comment was directed towards the Premier. We know what he said. He was told to shut up.

On occasions I've said the same thing to the Premier, as everyone in this House knows, about personal accusations. I don't favour one side or the other. But when we get in a situation where we shout personal insults back to each other, this is sometimes what happens.

Again, I hate to embarrass the leader of the official opposition. He asks tough, passionate questions, but he doesn't shout across while the answer is being given. If other members could look to that leadership, as well as to some of the other members, that's the way it should be done. Leader of the third party.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the acting Premier. Your government continues to say that the Adams mine site is safe and that people who live downstream from it don't have to worry about toxic leaks from the garbage. You say there's no problem.

Acting Premier, six days ago there was an earthquake measuring 3 on the Richter scale only 36 miles away from the mine site; 27 days ago there was another earthquake 30 miles away. This is in the middle of an active earthquake zone. Are you telling people that they don't have to worry about leaks, that they don't have to worry about cracks and fissures in the ground in the middle of an earthquake zone? Is that what you're really telling people?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I know the Minister of the Environment would like to shed some light on this issue.

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): Indeed waste management is a growing global problem and it's a very emotional issue. Let me assure you that our government takes this issue and the protection of the environment very seriously.

This project, the Adams mine, has undergone extensive and thorough technical analysis to ensure that the environment will be protected over the long term. As part of that commitment to the environmental assessment process, a full environmental was completed in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act. The Minister of the Environment requested that the Environmental Assessment Board review the hydraulic leachate collection and containment system to ensure that groundwater contamination would be prevented. Hearings lasted six months, and the board attached 26 conditions to the plan.

There was a certificate of approval issued after further technical analysis of the project, and that certificate carried with it 66 conditions. There were an additional eight independent peer reviews that carefully analyzed the details of the plan, and they submitted their reviews to the Environmental Assessment Board.

Mr Hampton: The evidence shows that this ground, this rock, is full of cracks and fissures already. The evidence already shows, going back to the 1980s, that there are leaks from those cracks and fissures. Now we've had two earthquakes in the last two months, and if you go back to January 1 of this year, there was a further earthquake in the area, measuring 5.3 on the Richter scale.

Are you honestly telling the people who live downstream from that mine site that with three earthquakes in less than a year, there is no risk of leakage over the next 100 years, no risk whatsoever that contaminated water will get out of that and into Lake Timiskaming and the Ottawa River? Are you giving them your guarantee?

Hon Mr Newman: Again, I tell the leader of the third party that a full environmental assessment of the Adams mine site took place. Again, there were also the Environmental Assessment Board hearings that took place; there was a judicial review and an appeal of that judicial review, because there was an environmental assessment in place. That's far different from what you did with the Lindsay-Ops site in 1991, sir. What you did was you granted an exemption to the EA process for the expansion of the Lindsay-Ops landfill.

Mr Hampton: We'll take up the Lindsay-Ops dump site some other time. The fact of the matter is that since you began this process, after you granted the environmental assessment approval, we have had three earthquakes, one of them measuring 5.3 on the Richter scale. It should be obvious to anyone that your plan is to dump toxic garbage into what is now a lake that is loaded with cracks and fissures and that is now, we know, an active earthquake site which is likely to develop more cracks and fissures.

It's not too late. You can call a halt to this bad process, this one-way process, before you have another environmental disaster on your hands. Will you do that? Will you acknowledge that an active earthquake zone is not the place to put 20 years of toxic garbage?

Hon Mr Newman: Again, there was a full environmental assessment that took place with respect to the Adams mine landfill. There was an Environmental Assessment Board hearing, a judicial review of that, as well as leave to appeal that was given. There were independent reviews given. It's the experts who decide whether or not that would go forward, and I can tell you that through all the data and all the reports, they have recommended this. We stand behind the environmental assessment process.

SAFE DRINKING WATER LEGISLATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My next question is also to the Acting Premier. We have a serious problem in Ontario in terms of your government being able to guarantee and assure people of the safety of their drinking water. You can't even guarantee the people of Walkerton that they will be able to drink their water before Christmas. You've got a real problem. We want to help you with it.

This Thursday, Bill 96, the Safe Drinking Water Act, which goes through a number of the issues that your government must confront in order to assure people that their drinking water is safe to drink, comes up for debate and for second reading. Will you, Acting Premier, be supporting the Safe Drinking Water Act, Bill 96, this Thursday?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I know the Minister of the Environment would like to comment on that particular bill.

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): I just want to again take the opportunity to remind the member opposite that we do have Operation Clean Water in effect, a very comprehensive plan to protect drinking water in this province. We have a tough new drinking water protection regulation.

But let me remind you that we have been there for the people of Walkerton from day one. We've replaced 4.6 kilometres of water main. The pipe replacement is complete and work on the service connection is continuing. We've issued orders to stop using well 5 and we've issued a hydrogeological study in areas surrounding the other wells. The Ontario Clean Water Agency is installing the interim filtration system to be put in place by October 30. Every house and every building within Walkerton has been sampled as part of the confirmation program to ensure the efficiency of the house-to-house flushing that's taking place, and we continue to be there.

I want to remind everyone just what the mayor of Walkerton said about this government at the AMO conference. He said, "While there may be some who may have questioned the province's commitment to address our tragic circumstances, I can personally tell you from day one the Premier, the Minister of the Environment, the Attorney General and the entire Ontario support team have done whatever it takes to help us restore clean and safe water."

Mr Hampton: The question was, is the acting Premier going to support the Safe Drinking Water Act? What we got from the Minister of the Environment is more gobbledegook. Dr Murray McQuigge today has said that what you have put in place so far doesn't do anything that is effective.

So I'm going to repeat the question: will you be supporting the Safe Drinking Water Act? But I also want to ask you this. We now know that the E coli has been identified as coming from cattle manure runoff. Your government promised last spring that you were going to introduce legislation to control intensive farming. You said that last spring. Nothing happened. Now you have said it's going to happen this fall. Well, it's the fall, Minister. When are we going to see the legislation controlling intensive farming and are you going to support the Safe Drinking Water Act?

Hon Mr Newman: I'll refer the question to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Hon Ernie Hardeman (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): To the member opposite I want to say that, as he pointed out, we have been doing intensive consultation on the issue of nutrient management in the agricultural area of the province to make sure that, as an agricultural community, we are doing the best possible job of handling those nutrients from the livestock operations.

As he will be aware, we have been consulting through the summer, and as recently as last Saturday we met with a great number of stakeholders to discuss the issues that we've had out for consultation for the summer. We hope to be able to put that all together and come forward with a plan that will deal appropriately with the issue.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Health. A short while ago a story came off the newswire, and this is the title: "Harris Says Health Travel Grants Discriminatory to Southern Ontarians.

It says, "Ontario Premier Mike Harris admits there's discrimination in his government's financial help for medically necessary travel, but he says it's southern Ontarians who get less cash."

In one fell swoop, your boss, the Premier, has insulted all northern Ontarians, but especially their families and especially sick people. How is it that you can possibly justify your Premier making this kind of a statement? I would have preferred to put the question to him, but I can't. Can you now stand up and disassociate yourself from this comment and admit, finally, that if there is discrimination, it is clear that your government's policies are discriminating against cancer patients who reside in northern Ontario?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): As the leader knows, there are two distinct travel plans in the province of Ontario. If we take a look at the northern health travel grant, it is available only to people who live in northern Ontario. It is not available to people who live in southern Ontario, even though some of those people might have to travel long distances.

If we take a look at the cancer referral program, everyone in the province of Ontario is eligible for reimbursement, no matter where you live in the province. It treats everybody the same.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Final supplementary.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Minister, on behalf of your Premier, I want you to stand in your place and apologize to the people of northern Ontario who have to travel for treatment. Apologize to Janet Skinner, who's spent $40,000 trying to save her life. Apologize to Sue and Dan Piché, who received their first travel cheque after their son had died from leukemia and they had spent $35,000 trying to save his life. Apologize to Paul Defant, whose 23 visits to Toronto fighting leukemia have caused him to spend thousands of dollars.

Apologize to all those cancer patients who are travelling for care, who are paying from their pockets in order to get the treatment they require. On behalf of your Premier, I want you to stand in your place and apologize for your Premier's comments.

Hon Mrs Witmer: Unfortunately, the member has not always been interested in the facts concerning the two programs, and I would just repeat what I said before: the northern health travel grant is available only to people in northern Ontario who are travelling to receive specialized health services. There is no grant available for people living in southern Ontario, and some of those individuals have long distances to travel as well.

The cancer care program is a program of re-referral if care cannot be provided at the local location, and it is available to any Ontarian who is asked to leave their own site.

COST OF ELECTRICAL POWER

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is for the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology. Representatives from various electric utilities in my riding have approached me with concerns about Bill 100, the Ontario Energy Board Amendment Act. There is a perception that the intent of our government in introducing this bill is to have Hydro One take over most of Ontario's utility services and leave only a few other mega-utilities. They believe that this will not create better service for the consumer but, rather, create a more powerful Hydro One. If this is true, I can understand the opposing arguments. Could you please clarify the purpose of this bill and correct any misconceptions?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): Bill 100, which is

An Act to promote efficiency in the municipal electricity sector and protect consumers from unjustified rate increases, was introduced in this Legislature in response to OEB procedures of this year. This past May, the 25 large municipal utilities were asked to file with the Ontario Energy Board their rate applications. What we found after we tallied up the numbers is that the average price of electricity for municipal ratepayers would go up about 17% in those 25 municipalities, like Toronto and like Mississauga.

Since municipalities are responsible for a small portion of the bill-they're responsible for the wires portion, what we call the monopoly portion of the bill-that meant that most of those municipalities, on average, were asking for a 72% increase in the portion of the bill that they were responsible for.

Obviously consumers needed protection until the Ontario Energy Board, for the first time, is able to bring in performance-based regulation and put a lid on these large increases. In the meantime, I would ask members to support Bill 100.

Mr Galt: I realize that the purpose is to place the consumer first and to create a level playing field. However, with Hydro One's ability to earn a rate of return on acquired assets and its ability to write off interest on acquisitions, will this have any effect on how rates will be established down the road and give Hydro One a definite advantage over the other utilities?

Hon Mr Wilson: I remind members that when I was appointed minister some three years ago, we had 303 municipal electrical utilities. That's several times more than the rest of Canada combined. Quebec has 12 utilities; most of the provinces have one or two.

Today we still have over 250 municipal electrical utilities. Bill 100 and the directive we sent to the Ontario Energy Board try to encourage those municipalities, along with the tax exemption, to become efficient, to amalgamate and to pass those savings on to customers. Remember, they're given a monopoly business. This has nothing to do with the competitive side of the generation business of this province.

With respect to Hydro One, it is treated under the law the same as Toronto or Mississauga or any other large utility. It has the exact same rules and the exact same set-up. In fact, if Toronto and Mississauga or Toronto and any other utility would get together, they would be larger than Hydro One. We need our 257 municipal utilities to get together and become larger than Hydro One. It's a regulated monopoly. The Ontario Energy Board, on behalf of consumers, will determine those monopoly rates in the future, regardless of the size and regardless of ownership.

SCHOOL EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I have a question for the Minister of Education. Minister, I want to ask you about the turmoil you've caused in the high schools in particular, for the students in high school this fall. Last year virtually all, 70 out of 72 school boards, had substantial extracurricular activities, 97%. You insisted on bringing in a new law, and now we have students and parents demonstrating all around the province. They're being deprived of extracurricular activities because you have put a new burden on teachers because you changed the rules with your law last spring.

Now, Minister, O'Ryan, who is the student council president at Humberside Collegiate, where I was last week, wants to know, will you bring some peace back to the schools? Will you provide the flexibility and the funds to give back the extracurricular activities that you have taken away?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): First of all, I'd like to say to the honourable member that I certainly share the concerns of those parents and those students in those schools who are finding that the teachers in those schools are not doing extracurricular activities, have chosen not to do so. I share their frustration. I have certainly said to them that walking out of class, I don't think, is the most appropriate way to express that and have given them some suggestions for making those views known, because I think those are very important comments and concerns they are registering in their communities and with their school boards and with the other members in their school.

But I think the other thing that the honourable member does not wish to mention is that there are literally thousands of teachers in this province who, because they care about the kids, are choosing to provide extracurricular activities. They see it as part of their job, they see it as something that students need as part of their education.

The other thing to say-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm afraid the minister's time is up. Supplementary.

Mr Kennedy: I'd like to ask the minister, on behalf of the students in this province, to kindly get her head out of the sand. The principals, as you know, because they sent you a copy of the results-the principals' association has done a survey of schools, and 74% of 92 high schools have either decreased extracurricular activities a great deal or completely ended them.

Minister, you are responsible. Last spring 97% of the boards and the schools had extracurricular; now 74% have either dramatically reduced or stopped altogether. Do the math. What kind of example are you setting for the students of this province when you refuse to take responsibility? You won't admit that when you give the teachers 25% more class time, extracurriculars are going to lose out.

Now, Minister, something does have to give. Will you-

Interjection.

The Speaker: Stop the clock; sorry to interrupt.

I asked the member not to yell that. What happens when somebody yells that? The person asking the question doesn't know if it's me or somebody else. It gets very confusing. I will handle the time. I appreciate it from the member. I hate to embarrass him, but when it starts with that, everybody does that and then we can't control it. Particularly down at the other end when somebody is asking, they sometimes have trouble with the time. Please don't yell that again.

Final supplementary.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, what right do you have to interfere with these students' lives? They're losing their sports, their help room, their orientation. Some of their classroom is affected, their dances, their academic clubs. You're taking it away from them, Minister. Will you put aside the sledgehammer? Will you find a way around your confrontational approach? Will you bring some peace to our schools by returning the flexibility and the funding that you took away and do some honour to the students-

The Speaker: Time is up. The Minister of Education?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The honourable member talks about an example. What kind of an example is it for students when they see in their own community teachers who see extracurricular as part of their job, who do extracurricular as part of their job, who choose to do that because it's important for the kids, and at the next school some of those teachers are choosing not to do it? Of course those students are frustrated.

We have set a workload standard, four hours and 10 minutes on average, for a teacher. It's set on the national average. It was set three years ago. I'd like to say to the honourable member, what level of workload would he like to see for teachers? How long does he think this political fight between a teachers' union and a school board or a teachers' union and a government-how long does he think they should keep that political fight going on on the backs of our students? I'm with those thousands of teachers who are helping students. I'm with those students who are out there saying to their teachers, "I want extracurricular activities"-

The Speaker: Order. The minister's time is up, I'm afraid.

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Mr Brad Clark (Stoney Creek): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. I heard earlier today from one of my constituents that they read in the paper that a company called Rhodes Consulting is doing work for your ministry. Can you tell me what this contract is and how much it is costing the taxpayers in Ontario?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): I want to thank the member from Stoney Creek for his question. In fact, the situation in Walkerton has created some considerable concern for the people of Ontario, and it was important to ensure that we as a ministry were effectively communicating the necessary information to the people of Walkerton in a timely fashion.

Given the increased attention to water initiatives, it was necessary to hire additional resources to communicate the initiatives that we have undertaken to assure the people of Ontario that their drinking water is safe. Yes, it is true that Rhodes Consulting has been contracted by my ministry for a three-month period. It was a tendered contract. Three companies responded with bids and Rhodes Consulting was selected. I want you to know that the ministry's current overall communications budget for all programs, including Drive Clean, is $6.1 million. Rhodes Consulting is being paid $50,000, or less than 1% of the overall communications budget.

Mr Clark: Minister, can you please explain to us in the House here, what are the initiatives you're undertaking to secure the water system for Walkerton residents?

Hon Mr Newman: Indeed, I want to remind everyone that we've replaced 4.6 kilometres of water mains. The pipe replacement is indeed complete and the work on the service connections is continuing. We've issued orders to stop using well 5 and ordered a hydrogeological study in areas surrounding the other wells.

The Ontario Clean Water Agency is installing the interim filtration system, and that's expected to be in place by October 30. Every house and every building has been sampled as part of a confirmation program to ensure that the disinfection program has taken place with respect to the flushing of all the houses.

We continue to provide an alternative supply of water to local long-term care facilities, the hospital and jails, with water trucked daily from the nearby town of Hanover. We continue to work with the municipality on longer-term supply options to ensure a safe and secure water supply for the community affected.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Minister, my question is, when is your government, your Premier, yourself, going to end your discrimination against northern cancer patients? For 18 months now, your government has paid 100% of the costs for southern Ontario cancer patients to get treatment elsewhere: 100% of the cost of travel, food, accommodation, taxi fare. Your government did this because these patients have to travel far from home to access cancer care and you didn't want them to have to suffer a financial burden when they did so.

Madam Minister, cancer patients in northern Ontario travel far from home every single day when they access care in Thunder Bay, in Sudbury, in Toronto and in Ottawa. In contrast, your government pays them a mere 30 cents per kilometre one way from their home to the cancer treatment centre.

Minister, your government's discrimination cannot continue. When will it end?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): In response to the member, I find it very surprising, when the member's party was in office for five years and had the opportunity to make changes to the northern health travel grant, that it did not at that time choose to do so. In fact, it was the NDP government who decided they would tighten the criteria. You actually required patients to access the specialist nearest to them.

In response to your question, again, I would just remind you of the fact that Cancer Care Ontario has made a decision that if people are to