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

June 20, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Jun-20 vol. A (PDF)

L075A - Tue 20 Jun 2000 / Mar 20 jun 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

FARM PRACTICES

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

MARGARET EVE

TENANTS

VOLUNTEER POLICE

ASSISTANCE TO DISABLED STUDENTS

WORKPLACE FATALITIES

YOUTH BOCCE

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GOOD SAMARITAN ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LE BON SAMARITAIN

1274187 ONTARIO LIMITED ACT, 2000

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (HISTORIC VEHICLES), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (VÉHICULES ANCIENS)

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA COMMISSION DE L'ÉNERGIE DE L'ONTARIO

MOTORIZED SNOW VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MOTONEIGES

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (CELLULAR PHONES), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (TÉLÉPHONES CELLULAIRES)

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

MUNICIPAL ELECTRICITY EFFICIENCY

SNOWMOBILING

MUNICIPAL ELECTRICITY EFFICIENCY

SNOWMOBILING

MUNICIPAL ELECTRICITY EFFICIENCY

VISITORS

DEFERRED VOTES

EDUCATION ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ EN ÉDUCATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

WATER QUALITY

COST OF ELECTRICAL POWER

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

HOME CARE

E-COMMERCE LEGISLATION

RETIREMENT HOMES

WASTE DISPOSAL

LANDFILL

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

SAFE DRINKING WATER LEGISLATION

DURHAM COLLEGE

SAFE STREETS LEGISLATION

KARLA HOMOLKA

HIGHWAY 138

FARMFARE PROGRAM

LORD'S PRAYER

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

LORD'S PRAYER

WATER EXTRACTION

SAFE DRINKING WATER LEGISLATION

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

SCHOOL CLOSURES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I want the Minister of Health to address the absolutely critical need for long-term-care beds in Algoma-Manitoulin. Not one bed has been built since this government has come to power.

Elliot Lake needs to have its allocation for beds met immediately. Before the last election, with much fanfare, the minister came to Elliot Lake and announced an inadequate allocation for beds in Elliot Lake, with promises that the number would be supplemented in the next round. It has not happened. It needs to happen. These beds were needed years ago.

Espanola needs and must have the 34 beds it requested. The proposal was rejected by the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health says in her letter, "The proposal submitted by the Espanola General Hospital was not among the highest-ranked in the Algoma service area"; the operative words are "Algoma service area." Espanola, as all members of the House would know, is in the district of Sudbury.

What confidence can we have in a Minister of Health who believes that communities are in the wrong districts and believes that this could be a fair and equitable allocation of beds? Not one bed in the Sudbury district was allocated for the rural area. It is unacceptable.

FARM PRACTICES

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): Ontario's farmers are taking the initiative when it comes to being responsible stewards of our environment. This fact is clearly demonstrated by the efforts of farmers in my riding of Waterloo-Wellington.

Mrs Deborah Whale, of Clovermead Farms in Alma, has recently brought to my attention a number of ways in which our farmers are being proactive in the implementation of environmentally sound farm practices. For example, there is the Environmental Farm Plan, a concept developed by the Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition, through which individual farmers are able to identify their strengths and weaknesses and outline a plan to improve their operations.

The rural water quality program is another strong example of farmers taking this kind of responsibility. This program provides financial assistance for practical measures that protect our valued water supply. It is a pleasure to report that this program is said to have had an impressive participation rate in Wellington county and in Waterloo region.

These environmental initiatives led by farmers, and others, like the baseline water well testing program, the nutrient management planning workshops for farmers, the grower pesticide safety course, and the establishment of the Ontario Farm Animal Council and the Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition, must be acknowledged by all members of this House for their inherent foresight and commitment to environmentally sustainable farming practices in Ontario.

Farmers are being proactive. However, I think they will be the first to admit that even more widespread knowledge, understanding and leadership are required to work towards a clean environment and thus a stronger future for Ontario's farm families.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): In a few short minutes this Legislature will have jammed through third reading of Bill 74, the so-called Education Accountability Act. This is another example of a government paying no heed to any of its critics. It didn't listen to parents, it didn't listen to teachers, it didn't listen to principals, it didn't listen to public boards of education; it has listened to absolutely nobody. We had a day and a half-not even a day and a half-of hearings on what can only be called some of the most draconian education legislation we've seen at least since Bill 160. But this government will be held accountable.

I want to say to members of this House, particularly members of the government, that the official opposition has listened to the parents, to the educators, to the boards of education, to the principals and to the supervisory staff, and we say that even though you will use your majority today to fundamentally undermine and further harm our education system, it will be the power of public opinion that puts a brake on you people.

You cannot continue to abuse this Parliament. You cannot continue to abuse your majority. We won't let that happen. The third party won't let it happen. Most import ant, the people of Ontario are fed up with your arrogance and the tactics you're using against everyone in this province. You all ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

MARGARET EVE

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I rise in the Legislature today to pay tribute to OPP Sergeant Margaret Eve, who died on June 10, the first female OPP officer to die in the line of duty.

As many of you know, Sergeant Eve was remembered last week at a funeral in Chatham, which was attended by almost 6,000 people. Thousands of police officers from across Canada and the United States came to Chatham to pay their respects to their fallen comrade.

I'm also proud of the fact that the Solicitor General and our Premier were able to attend the funeral service.

Sergeant Eve is to be commended for her leadership and commitment to police service in Ontario and for contributing to the safety of our highways, our streets, our homes and our communities.

I also want to recognize Sergeant Eve, as she was originally from my riding of Perth-Middlesex. Sergeant Eve grew up on the family farm on Rural Route 2, St Paul's, and was the daughter of Cornelius and the late Elizabeth Vink. She attended Downie Central public school and Stratford Northwestern Secondary School.

Margaret Eve went on to serve 14 years with the Ontario police service and spent time in several southwestern Ontario detachments.

I would ask my colleagues in the House today to keep Sergeant Margaret Eve in their prayers and to recognize and support the hard-working men and women who make up our police services in Ontario.

TENANTS

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): I rise today to bring to the attention of this House a very important report card that has been issued today.

Tenant advocates and activists have done their evaluations and recommend that housing Minister Tony Clement be transferred from his portfolio to the backbenches for some remedial studies.

Let me summarize some of the comments on the report card: In mathematics, Mr Clement has received a D for his number sense. To quote the evaluators, "He fails to grasp the significance of numbers given to him-for example, the statistics relating to the work of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal."

But members may be pleased to know that he received a B+ for arithmetic operations. To quote the report card, "Tony shows a flair for subtraction-especially effectively reducing shelter subsidies and social housing starts."

Overall, these groups have some serious concerns with his interest in the job. They say, "Tony has had some success with his extracurricular activities, but despite challenging opportunities, failed to take an interest in his work."

These groups have prepared a light-hearted report card to highlight the very serious issue of the minister's poor performance. The bottom line is that Mr Clement lacks the political will, skill and competence to be an effective housing minister.

I'm sending this over to the Premier in the hope that he will sign this report card, take the recommended remedial action and replace Minister Clement with someone who has a real interest in and energy to tackle Ontario's growing housing and homelessness crisis.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Speaker: I just wanted to make sure that the member for Perth-Middlesex, along with the Solicitor General and the Premier, knows that the Leader of the Opposition and five other members from the Liberal Party attended-

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

VOLUNTEER POLICE

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My statement today is a salute to 40 years of auxiliary policing in Ontario. Over 40 years ago, the volunteer auxiliary of the Ontario Provincial Police came into being, and now, over 800 strong, they come from every walk of life to assist in protecting the people of Ontario. They are held in the highest esteem and have earned our profound respect. We honour their faithfulness.

Last Saturday, I attended a couple of ceremonies-a parade in Orillia that was also attended by the Solicitor General and a banquet in Peterborough that was attended by Mr Gary Stewart as well-to pay tribute to these volunteers and to express deep gratitude for the work they perform. The role they play in policing is truly valued, as they strive to promote safety and bring peace within our communities. Most often, they participate quietly in the background, receiving little recognition for their efforts. We applaud their worthy contributions.

They assist the OPP staff in their routine duties and in emergency situations. Undaunted, they often step beyond the call of duty, thus risking their own safety. Selfless and courageous, they are willing to serve during any unforeseen disasters. We applaud their sincere commitment.

Each year they donate their time and are available for countless hours of shift work, and in fact in 1999 spent almost 200,000 hours on volunteer work. In giving of themselves, they make unending personal sacrifices, thereby missing numerous family celebrations and holidays. We thank them for their unfailing dedication.

They are stalwart ambassadors and a most professional representation of the Ontario Provincial Police. Please know how profoundly important these volunteers are to the OPP staff and to the people of this great province.

ASSISTANCE TO DISABLED STUDENTS

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): I want to talk today about a number of my younger constituents on Hamilton Mountain who are not helped at all by the so-called Education Accountability Act.

Sean is eight years old, an exceptional student with a moderate learning disability. His school, Corpus Christi, provides him with a modified program and remedial assistance, and borrows an educational assistant from another student to help him. The school is forced to rob Peter to pay Paul.

Why is this? Sean's disabilities are described as mild. In Mike Harris's Ontario, being mildly disabled with a solid potential for success, given early intervention, isn't good enough to get appropriate support.

This week my office has been flooded with stories similar to Sean's. In one case, the Colantino family has had a double hit. Their nine-year-old son with Down syndrome, who has had a full-time EA since he was four, next year will receive none-no support. Their daughter, a C4 quadriplegic, the result of an accident, will only have a part-time EA. Can you imagine what this family is going through every day, and to be told this week that their children will not have the assistance they deserve to try and meet that government's new criteria and curriculum?

Let me tell you about Justin D'Amico. He is seven years old, in grade 2 at St Teresa of Avila school. He has delays in speech and language and he has a mild to moderate learning disability. For the last two years he has had the half-time support of an educational assistant. Given this government's dysfunctional funding formula, he will receive no assistance in September. When will this government fix this formula and allow the most vulnerable of our children to get the education they deserve?

WORKPLACE FATALITIES

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I rise to bring to the attention of the members of the House a very tragic event that I'm sure many have seen in the news and read in the paper, that yesterday there were two construction workers killed and three injured. Darren Leon and Jose Alves were killed while working on a municipal construction site in Oakville. It was the result of a 12-storey crane collapsing and falling and killing these two workers. The Halton regional police, the Ministry of Labour and the coroner's office are currently investigating.

I rise today not just to bring attention to his, although that's important enough, but also to point out that the Ontario building trades council, under the leadership of Pat Dillon, has sent correspondence to the Minister of Labour advising him that they are now aware that when they were denied access to the accident site, company officials were allowed there under the supposed purpose of doing paperwork.

Given the fact that there may indeed be charges as a result of this, the construction union has a real concern about what this may mean to the investigation and therefore they have called on the Minister of Labour to not only ensure that there's a coroner's inquest but to bump this up to a public inquest. Given the fact that non-union construction sites are two and half times more dangerous, statistically, than unionized sites, the NDP caucus joins the union in calling on the minister to ensure there's a public inquest.

YOUTH BOCCE

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): On behalf of my constituents in Thornhill, it is a great honour for me to rise in this House today to convey some wonderful news. Seven years ago, Mr Liberato "Lee" Prioriello founded Youth Bocce Canada, whose mission it is to support athletes with disabilities. Lee is a man of courage and vision. Through his efforts, youth bocce has been recognized as a competition at the regional level for the Ontario Special Olympics and at the international Olympics.

Through the tireless effort of Lee and his large staff of volunteers and coaches, Youth Bocce Canada's special-needs group has been granted an audience with His Holiness Pope John Paul II on August 9, 2000. This is a momentous event for all concerned, especially the athletes. The athletes will also be delivering a gift to the Pope. Artist Gerardo Colacci has recently completed a beautiful hand-painted fresco which depicts the portal of the Church of Saints Erasmo and Martino.

On behalf of all the members of this House, I would like to introduce and congratulate all the athletes and the man whose vision it was to organize this historic visit to the Vatican, and the artist who created this exquisite fresco to be presented to the Pope on August 9: Liberato Prioriello, president of Youth Bocce Canada; Gerardo Colacci, the artist; and the athletes, Marianne Tabangi, Adamo Balducci, Scott MacLachlan, Rita Santone, Albert Gentili, Robert Badinetti, Erica De Vincenzo, and Valentino D'Addamio.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on general government and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 15,

An Act to regulate the discharge of ballast water in the Great Lakes / Projet de loi 15, Loi réglementant le déchargement de l'eau de lest dans les Grands Lacs.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GOOD SAMARITAN ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LE BON SAMARITAIN

Bill 98,

An Act to protect persons from liability in respect of voluntary emergency medical or first aid services / Projet de loi 98, Loi visant à exonérer les personnes de la responsabilité concernant des services médicaux ou des premiers soins fournis bénévolement en cas d'urgence.

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

The member for a short statement.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): You may recall that in the previous Parliament this bill was introduced. It made it all the way to third reading and unfortunately died on the order paper.

The so-called Good Samaritan Act would protect health care professionals and other individuals from liability for negligence in respect of services that they provide in certain circumstances to persons who are ill, injured or unconscious as a result of an accident or other emergency, except if they cause damages through gross negligence.

1274187 ONTARIO LIMITED ACT, 2000

Mr Young moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr25,

An Act to revive 1274187 Ontario Limited.

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

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

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (HISTORIC VEHICLES), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (VÉHICULES ANCIENS)

Mr O'Toole moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 99,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to number plates for historic vehicles / Projet de loi 99, Loi modifiant le Code de la route en ce qui concerne les plaques d'immatriculation pour les véhicules historiques.

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

The member for a short statement.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm following up on the very diligent work done by a previous member of this Legislature, John Parker, a former MPP for York East. The bill amends the Highway Traffic Act to allow numbered plates to be used on historic vintage vehicles in Ontario that were issued during the year of manufacture of the vehicle and, as a condition satisfactory to the minister, do not duplicate the number of any other existing permit. Historic vehicles are defined as being at least 30 years of age and substantially unchanged or unmodified from the original manufacturer's product.

I'm pleased to support this, representing the riding of Durham-General Motors.

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA COMMISSION DE L'ÉNERGIE DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Wilson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 100,

An Act to promote efficiency in the municipal electricity sector and to protect consumers from unjustified rate increases / Projet de loi 100, Loi visant à promouvoir l'efficience dans le secteur municipal de l'électricité et à protéger les consommateurs contre les hausses tarifaires injustifiées.

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

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

The minister for a short statement.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): Mr Speaker, I'll make a statement during ministerial statements.

MOTORIZED SNOW VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MOTONEIGES

Mr Jackson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 101,

An Act to promote snowmobile trail sustainability and enhance safety and enforcement / Projet de loi 101, Loi visant à favoriser la durabilité des pistes de motoneige et à accroître la sécurité et les mesures d'éxecution.

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

The minister for a short statement.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Tourism): I'm pleased today to rise and introduce

an act to improve the sustainability and safety of Ontario's snowmobile trails. Snowmobiling is an important winter recreational activity in Ontario for both residents and tourists alike. Among other benefits, it creates an economic boost to Ontario communities during the winter snowmobiling season, a time of year when the tourism industry needs that increased business.

Given the extensive network and the increased use of snowmobile trails, a mechanism needs to be developed to ensure that people continue to have access to this recreational activity into the future.

At the same time, the government is committed to improving the safety of snowmobiling and reducing snow vehicle fatalities, which average more than 30 each winter in Ontario.

Mr Speaker, this act to improve the sustainability and safety of Ontario's snowmobile trails proposes revisions to the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act and the Trespass to Property Act. It includes a mandatory user-pay approach through a permit for users of Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs trails, and significant safety enhancements.

The Speaker: Order, Minister, if you could. I'm sorry; I thought the minister was going to do that during statements. I didn't mean to interrupt. Were you done? I apologize. I thought there was some confusion there.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (CELLULAR PHONES), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (TÉLÉPHONES CELLULAIRES)

Mr O'Toole moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 102,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit the use of phones and other equipment while driving on a highway / Projet de loi 102, Loi modifiant le Code de la route pour interdire l'utilisation de téléphones et d'autres équipements pendant la conduite sur une voie publique.

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

All those in favour of the motion will-

Interjections.

The Speaker: I appreciate the levity, but it is a bill, so I would appreciate order.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

The member for a short statement.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I know the members on all sides have problems with this because they use their cell phones in their cars. But after listening to my constituents in the riding of Durham, specifically Gwen Meraw, I've paid particular attention to how this interferes with the safe operation of vehicles. The bill adds a section,

part VI of the Highway Traffic Act, to prohibit the use of cell phones or portable computer packs in cars while driving a vehicle. Specific exceptions are provided for cases like emergencies. The bill also permits the use of phones, faxes etc while driving, as long as the equipment is fully operational with a hands-free feature. The bill goes on to require the registrar to compile data on accidents where cell phones and other portable equipment are in use while driving a motorized vehicle. This bill is a move towards safer transportation.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): I move that, notwithstanding standing order 9(c)(ii), the House shall meet from 6:45 pm to 12:00 am on Tuesday, June 20, 2000, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): I would ask for unanimous consent to make a motion relating to the standing committee on public accounts.

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

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that, as authorized by each caucus whip, the members of the standing committee on public accounts, or their alternates, be authorized to attend the 21st annual conference of the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees.

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

MUNICIPAL ELECTRICITY EFFICIENCY

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): Today I introduced legislation to promote efficiency in the municipal electricity sector and to protect consumers from unjustified rate increases. Two years ago I introduced the Energy Competition Act, legislation this House passed to ensure Ontarians a safe, reliable supply of electricity at the lowest possible cost. Then, as now, we identified three elements which must work together to ensure we reach our goals: first is competition in generation; second is debt reduction and, third, we need fair and stable distribution rates.

As a government, we've introduced competition in generation. This is spelled out in a plan which requires Hydro's successor company, Ontario Power Generation, to reduce its current dominant position in the generation market to 35% over the next 10 years. We've also introduced a debt retirement plan to reduce and eliminate Ontario Hydro's legacy of debt and liabilities.

But to bring the complete package of benefits to electricity customers, our partners, Ontario's municipalities and their local electric utilities, must share with us the responsibility of making decisions in the best interests of those we are elected to serve. Electricity customers have no choice but to use municipal utilities' wires. They are a monopoly, and operating a monopoly is a privilege. Therefore, it is only right that municipal utilities should deliver electricity at fair and reasonable prices. All local distribution rates are subject to review and approval by the Ontario Energy Board.

That is why less than two weeks ago, I directed the Ontario Energy Board to make customer protection its first priority when deciding rate applications. I further directed the Ontario Energy Board to ask municipalities to justify their rate applications before a decision is rendered.

I remind municipalities that two years ago, when we were drafting the Energy Competition Act, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Municipal Electrical Association urged the government not to force amalgamations and mergers in the electricity distribution sector. These same municipalities promised us that if we gave them the tools and incentives, they would do the right thing for customers and move to rationalize their distribution systems, find efficiencies, and ensure the lowest possible price.

Our legislation gave municipalities the tools they requested. The act clarified, for the first time, that municipalities own their electricity utilities. Local councils are the shareholders. We expect the municipalities to act responsibly. Some of them have. But, unfortunately, some municipalities have filed with the Ontario Energy Board for significant increases in local distribution rates, some by as much as 72%. This is being done without regard for the people who have already paid for their utilities, Ontario's electricity customers.

There are more than 250 municipal electric utilities in Ontario, 10 times more than in the rest of Canada combined. Between them, they have more than $1 billion in cash and investments. Customers have already put more than enough money into the electricity system to shield them against any short-term transitional and regulatory costs brought on by electricity restructuring. As I have said many times, municipalities must earn their rate of return by squeezing efficiencies in their operations, not by squeezing customers. We cannot afford to lose the many positive benefits of electricity competition.

Let me be unequivocal. Municipalities have been given a tremendous opportunity. They can manage their utilities effectively, create innovative partnerships, merge with other utilities, whatever method they choose to maximize the benefit to their electricity customers. We have tried to work with municipalities and their utilities to make sure they understand and follow the intent of the Energy Competition Act. We have listened to their needs and provided the tools they requested.

We urged that they not take advantage of consumers, and we have warned them that if they did not change their ways, legislation would be forthcoming to ensure they put customers first. Our pleas and warnings have gone unheeded. Now the time has come to act.

I have today introduced

an act to promote efficiency in the municipal electricity sector and to protect consumers from unjustified rate increases, which, if passed by members of this Legislature, would prohibit municipalities from taking windfall profits out of their local electrical utilities and using these profits to justify rate hikes. This legislation will give the Ontario Energy Board powers to disallow rate increases attributable either to assets or to financing transactions and costs where money does not stay in the electricity system.

It's unfortunate that some municipalities have kept electricity assets like surplus lands and working cash balances, and it's unfortunate that other municipal electric utilities have refinanced, taken out loans and turned the proceeds over to their municipal owners. Our proposed legislation will put a stop to this creative bookkeeping and ensure these windfalls are not used to justify rate increases.

If the legislation is passed, the Ontario Energy Board will have the power to review and ask for detailed financial data. Assets withheld from utilities will not be allowed as justification for rate increases. After all, the ratepayers paid for their electricity systems and we believe the money should stay in those systems.

I'm sure everyone agrees that consumer protection and the lowest possible distribution rates should be our goal. That is what this amendment will do and I hope to have the support of this House to formalize this consumer protection as soon as possible.

SNOWMOBILING

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Tourism): I rise today to introduce

an act to improve the sustainability and safety of Ontario's snowmobile trails. Snowmobiling is an important winter recreational activity in Ontario for both residents and tourists alike. Among other benefits, it creates an economic boost to Ontario communities during the winter snowmobiling season, a time of the year when the tourism industry needs increased business.

Given the extensive network and the increasing use of snowmobile trails, a mechanism needs to be developed to ensure that people continue to have access to this recreational activity now and well into the future.

At the same time, the government is committed to improving the safety of snowmobiling and to reducing the snow vehicle fatalities, which in Ontario, sadly, are on average about 30 individuals each winter.

An Act to promote snowmobile trail sustainability and enhance safety and enforcement proposes revisions to two pieces of Ontario legislation: the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act and the Trespass to Property Act. It includes a mandatory user-pay approach through a permit for users of Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Club trails, and significant safety enhancements and new enforcement provisions. These measures will ensure that the people who benefit most directly from Ontario's organized snowmobile trails system would contribute to its upkeep. The recommended safety and enforcement enhancements would help reduce the number of incidents that occur on snowmobile trails.

These revisions were recommended by a government task force on snowmobiling which was chaired by my parliamentary assistant, the MPP for Brampton Centre, Joe Spina. Among those who were consulted were leaders in Ontario's snowmobile industry, the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs and the joint public-private sector Ontario Snowmobile Safety Committee.

The government, in co-operation with the snowmobile community and other stakeholders, needs to take action if snowmobiling is to remain a significant winter activity in Ontario. I urge members of the Legislature to vote in favour of this bill so that we can support the development of a far safer and more economically sustainable snowmobile trail system for our province.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Statements by ministries? Responses?

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): We all realize the tremendous economic impact that the snowmobilers have on our province of over a billion dollars per year. We also recognize the fact that we've got over 49,000 snowmobile trails in Ontario, which is much more than the road network that we have, yet it's all basically being maintained by volunteers. The question we have is, why isn't some of our gasoline revenue that snowmobilers pay going into the system?

What we're suggesting to the government is that this bill be referred after first reading for public hearings in the province of Ontario. We think it's very important to do it after first reading. There are an extremely large number of groups out there that have an opinion on this kind of legislation. We welcome the enhancement as far as the safety aspects are concerned, but on all other aspects of the bill we want to hear from the general public.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I want to the speak to the announcement by the Minister of Tourism also and indicate that snowmobiling is an important economic activity within my constituency.

It's also a recreational one and I want to echo the thoughts of the member for Kingston and the Islands with regard to the volunteers. Volunteers have done an absolutely incredible job in maintaining a huge network of trails in Ontario, and I think that they deserve the applause.

It's now time for government to recognize some of the problems inherent in what the minister just announced. As we go across the province talking about this bill, and I hope we do, we can talk about the traditional users who will need to be on these trails who have no interest in the snowmobile trails in general. I know from talking to people from the snowmobile federations that they understand this is a problem and they're looking for a resolution also.

I want to reiterate that northerners particularly are interested in this bill and we want to hear from the public on how we might address its shortcomings.

MUNICIPAL ELECTRICITY EFFICIENCY

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I want to respond on behalf of my Liberal colleagues to Minister Wilson's statement about electricity rates.

Well, well, well, two years after we began the debate on the electricity policy of the Harris government, even Jim Wilson, the last one in the province, now admits that under his electricity policy electricity rates are going up and they're going up for everybody. Whose fault is it? He's playing the blame game-it's all the municipalities' fault-when the reality is the municipalities are only playing by Jim Wilson's rules.

Two years ago in the committee the municipalities said, "Leave us the option of being not-for-profit local utilities." Jim Wilson's answer: "No, you must be for-profit people under the government's legislation." The evidence before the committee was that municipalities could restructure, that there were efficiencies, but nobody expected that under the Harris government's electricity policy we were going to get a much bigger, stronger, more expensive Ontario Hydro Retail, and that's what we're getting.

A lot of the orderly restructuring that should be happening out there, particularly in southern Ontario on the distribution side, can't happen and won't happen because the real monopolists here are in the Harris cabinet. They rigged the rules of this electricity policy in favour of the provincially owned Hydro.

Do you know those new ads that are out there? They are absolutely prophetic. Hydro One? Under Mike Harris's electricity policy, it's Ontario Hydro won-w-o-n-because we've got a monopoly generator where the big change has to occur, and it's not occurring.

I have in my hand today a letter from a big industrial consumer in eastern Ontario, and there's no municipal utility involved in their transaction. They're being told by their supplier, Mike Harris's wholly-owned Ontario Hydro: "Get ready this fall. Your rates are probably going to go up 20%." That's three million bucks on their bottom line. When these people talk to Mike Harris's Ontario Hydro about, "Isn't there any compassion for the customer?" the answer is, "We are obligated under these new rules to maximize the benefit for our shareholder, the Ontario government."

That's what is going on out there with the direct customers of Ontario Hydro. You bet there are monopolists at work and they are the monopolists that are wholly owned by the Ontario government.

We've also got Hydro One, the new, bigger growing Ontario retail company. They're out buying up municipal utilities and paying premiums of 30% and 40%. Those selfsame people restructured in the dark last year and gave themselves a commercial rate of return of 9.3%. What are Jim Wilson and Mike Harris going to do about that gouging and that monopoly?

SNOWMOBILING

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I want to respond to the statement by the Minister of Tourism and say that it's nice to see him continuing to build on the foundation we put in place when we were in government between 1990 and 1995 where snowmobiling is concerned.

We think this is good, but we have some concerns. We think it's about time. With increased use of trails, the need to look at existing legislation and tailor it to meet tourism and safety concerns was great. A mandatory permit helps law enforcement. By making it mandatory to carry a permit and licence, it will also make it easier for police to lay charges for safe driving or trespassing infractions.

The permit fees will help pay for trail grooming. The focus has been on making new trails or building new bridges, not necessarily on ensuring proper trail maintenance. We think the helmets-and-life law is good. There are about 35 to 40 snowmobile-related fatalities each season in Ontario, so any safety features to help prevent future fatalities are obviously welcome.

We do have some real concerns, though. We don't think it deals effectively with safety concerns. A coalition of police and government agencies is demanding stricter standards for snowmobiling to ensure safety. This group is trying to promote national standards for snowmobile safety, and Ontario should be at the forefront of that effort.

We also think that this bill should go to public hearings, because we in northern Ontario have some real concerns about the impact of this on the people who work and live in our neck of the woods.

MUNICIPAL ELECTRICITY EFFICIENCY

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I want to respond to the Minister of Energy, and I want to remind citizens of Ontario that this is the Minister of Energy who said, "Deregulation is going to lead to your electricity rates going down." Now he's in here saying: "Oops, we have to re-regulate. Otherwise, the prices are going to go up." And he's accusing the municipal utilities of some great sin. What is the great sin? The great sin is they're behaving like profit-making operations. They're behaving the way your legislation says they're supposed to work. They're supposed to out there and maximize their profit.

But it is more insidious than that. This minister knows that all across Ontario municipalities are staggering under the downloading of this government. They don't have enough money to protect their water systems, they don't have enough money to treat their sewage systems because this government has withdrawn, so they're looking for ways to find money to manage all these problems that are being downloaded on to them. One way is to do as the legislation suggests: maximize their profit from the utility. But now the government steps in and says, "No, you can't do that."

But the people need to know this: If a community sells their utility to a private company, the private company can go out there and float the whole thing with debt and then go before the energy board and say, "We need a 20% rate increase to cover our debt." This regulatory legislation doesn't cover a private company. A private company can go out there and milk the ratepayers for all they want.

So what is this government really doing? What they're really doing is this: They're going to force municipal utilities to privatize. They're going to force municipal utilities to follow the agenda of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, to sell off the rates, but once they're sold off to a private company, the private company isn't regulated at all. It can raise rates 20%, 30%, 40%, and this government doesn't have a thing to say about it.

That's what's really going on here. This is a government that said, "Deregulation is going to lower your power rates." It's not. The municipal utilities are only obeying your legislation. They're trying to behave like profit-making companies, they're trying to maximize profit-they increase rates. You say you're protecting the consumer. You're only going to drive municipalities to sell their utilities to private companies. This legislation won't cover private companies. A private company will be able to walk in, finance the whole thing with debt and raise rates over and over again.

Again, to bring everybody back to reality, the minister says that rates elsewhere aren't rising. Well, why is every paper mill, every sawmill, every mining operation-Inco, Stelco-receiving notices from Hydro, "Your rates are going to go up by 20%"? That's going to cost us jobs. What are you going to do about that, Minister? Come in here a week from now or after the House isn't sitting and announce again that you have to re-regulate? Your whole agenda of deregulation is failing.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We have with us today in the Speaker's gallery a delegation from Bulgaria which includes members of their Parliament and their Secretary General. Accompanying the delegation is the Consul General of the Republic of Bulgaria to Toronto.

DEFERRED VOTES

EDUCATION ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ EN ÉDUCATION

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 74,

An Act to amend the Education Act to increase education quality, to improve the accountability of school boards to students, parents and taxpayers and to enhance students' school experience / Projet de loi 74, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'éducation pour rehausser la qualité de l'éducation, accroître la responsabilité des conseils scolaires devant les élèves, les parents et les contribuables et enrichir l'expérience scolaire des élèves.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1420 to 1425.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael D.

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Palladini, Al

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Young, David

The Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 52; the nays are 42.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

This House will stand recessed for five minutes while we ask our friends in the gallery to withdraw.

The House recessed from 1428 to 1434.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My questions are for the Premier. I want you to know what they're saying in Walkerton this week. There's a story in this week's Walkerton paper, the Walkerton Herald-Times, and it quotes at length from one public official whose efforts during the tragedy were nothing less than heroic.

Dr Murray McQuigge, the local medical officer of health, appeared before the town council, and, Premier, I can tell you that he has taken the gloves off and he is telling it as he sees it. These are some of the things he said. He described the state of Ontario's drinking water supply as "a bomb that was waiting to go off." He goes on to say, "We knew for a certainty that this was going to happen."

We have spent the last several days, in fact a few weeks now, telling you about warning after warning that you and your government officials had received. Premier, why didn't you listen to those warnings?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): In the wake of Walkerton there were all kinds of allegations and accusations. In order that we can get to the bottom of what happened and ensure that this kind of tragedy never happens again, we have set up a number of independent inquiries to see who was saying what, are they credible and did they call for this? There have always been some who will say, "We disagree with this policy," or "We disagree with that policy."

Let me say that I think the chief medical officer of health has done heroics there in Walkerton. We are very supportive of the early action he took, and certainly I know the people of Walkerton are very supportive of the actions we've taken both for short-term assistance and of course in a longer-term look.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you didn't listen back then and you're still not listening today. I'm talking to you about what Dr McQuigge said about this issue. This is a man whose reputation here is impeccable, a man of the utmost integrity, who agonized over this issue and who deeply regretted the fact that he didn't have the information he needed in a timely way so that he could have saved lives.

Listen to what else he said. The

article says, "Time and time again, Dr McQuigge drew attention to the inadequacy of regulations and standards for both rural homes with wells and municipalities. McQuigge told Grey county council last week that the switch to private labs in 1996 for water testing was regarded by medical officers of health as a bad idea right from the beginning. `We knew for a certainty this was going to happen,' he said grimly. `This was like a bomb waiting to go off,' he said."

Premier, he's telling us that this was like a bomb waiting to go off. That bomb has gone off once already; it could go off again, but you continue to refuse to listen to warnings you received in the past and to those warnings that we draw to your attention and to your minister's attention day in and day out. Will you now take our advice and hire the 100 inspectors and enforcement officers we need out there on the ground right across the province today to prevent this kind of a tragedy from occurring again?

Hon Mr Harris: Certainly we've suggested that the ministry and the various inquiries and, of course, the consultant we've hired as well, take a look at ministry practice, listen to Dr McQuigge and review all the evidence of any who have suggestions as to how we can do a better job in the future.

Like Dr McQuigge, we too regret that information was not made available in the kind of timely fashion it ought to have been to have prevented the tragedy that occurred in Walkerton. That's why, of course, your advice in 20-20 hindsight is very appreciated. It's not going to change Walkerton, but we're certainly committed to ensuring that we get best practices in place so that a Walkerton-type situation never happens again.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, as this session winds down one thing is perfectly clear and that is that your priorities are totally out of whack. Seven people died in Walkerton, potentially as many as 14. The conditions that led to that tragedy still exist, still prevail throughout the province today, yet you're content to sit on your hands. There are things we could do today to make Ontarians safer when it comes to their own drinking water. You want to sit on your hands. You say you can't do anything at this point in time.

On the other hand, when it comes to giving yourself a 33% pay hike, you're prepared to put the wheels in motion so that everything moves quickly. Premier, why is it that you've got a lot of cash for yourself but there is no money available to hire 100 new inspectors?

Hon Mr Harris: I don't know if the member is referring to the legislation that he unanimously supported in the last campaign and going into the campaign that called for the Speaker to have an independent report. On May 16, 2000, Dalton McGuinty said: "It's important to be done at arm's length. We'll wait and see what they come up with; never a right time, but I haven't had a raise in 10 years. I think it's appropriate to undertake a review."

I understand that in a matter of a couple of weeks, you've flip-flopped on your position there. Strong leadership means you don't flip-flop every time you think the public mood has changed.

Let me repeat that when it comes to Walkerton-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Sorry to interrupt, Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: We want to get to the bottom of what happened in Walkerton. We have, since Walkerton, been very responsive and quick to provide short-term assistance. The Minister of the Environment provided clarification of the regulations within a matter of days. We have a number of inquiries, plus a management review at the Ministry of the Environment. I think most objective observers would say that we treat the matter very seriously and that we have moved very quickly.

As to the matter of your flip-flop on the independent commission, you will have to answer for that, not me.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr McGuinty: My question's for the Premier. On this matter of the pay hike, I have been perfectly clear. A 33% pay hike is totally ridiculous. It is unacceptable, it is absurd and it is perverse. You were given the opportunity this morning, perverse-Premier-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Stop the clock. Leader of the official opposition, sorry for the interruption.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you were given the opportunity this morning to reject a 33% pay hike out of hand. You refused to do that. It's my opinion that the people of Ontario are not at all prepared to accept a pay hike of that amount. That's where you and I differ. You think 33% is OK and acceptable. I think it is ridiculous.

Interjections.

When it comes to Walkerton, you failed to do two things in particular-

The Speaker: Sorry to interrupt. Stop the clock. Government members come to order. We can't continue when you're yelling and screaming at him. I know people are laughing. We're coming to the end of a session. We can't continue on like this. He's trying to ask a question. You can't be yelling and screaming so that I can't hear him. I would say very clearly that government benchers can be named as well. Sorry for the interruption. Leader of the official opposition.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): Premier, when it comes to Walkerton, you have failed to do two things in particular: One, you have failed to accept responsibility for the problems created by your changes, your cuts, your negligence in ignoring all those important warnings; two, you have failed to start rehiring the people you let go so that we'll have the necessary people on the ground to conduct the inspections and provide reassurance to the people of Ontario when it comes to the safety of their own drinking water.

Time's running out on this session. Why is it you won't do those two simple things: accept responsibility and hire the 100 inspectors?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): We have accepted responsibility and do so, and also we've accepted responsibility for immediate assistance to the people of Walkerton. We've accepted responsibility to get to the bottom, with full inquiries as to the cause of Walkerton, and we accept responsibility today and into the future for insuring a Walkerton doesn't happen again.

I might add, the main

preamble to the Leader of the Opposition's question seemed to be trying to cover up his flip-flop on the matter of supporting an independent commission. On May 16, Howard Hampton, at least to his credit, said, "I'm not in favour of any raise." What did Dalton McGuinty say on May 16? Dalton McGuinty said: "You know, there's never a right time, but it has been 10 years. I think it's appropriate to undertake a review at this time." He says, "I think it's important to be done at arm's length." Again, "It has been 10 years."

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

Mr McGuinty: You think 33% is right, you think it's acceptable to Ontarians; I don't. That's the distinction, Premier.

Premier, I know that for you vacation is kind of an ongoing thing, but many Ontario families will have their first opportunity at a vacation this summer, and they'll be flocking to summer camps, they'll be going to trailer parks and they'll be stopping along the way at roadside service stations. These are public places, all of which are served by private wells. The important matter here is that private wells of this nature today in Ontario are not being tested. In letter after letter, public health inspectors have been telling your government that you can't just leave it to the owners.

One told you in February, "Self-regulation may be acceptable for some suppliers of water in Ontario, but most suppliers, I contend, do not complete the work outlined in the Ontario Drinking Water Objectives."

Premier, now that you know, now that you understand that all these Ontario families are going to be braving the traffic and seeking respite by going to campgrounds and trailer parks and stopping at service stations along the way, all of which are supplied by private wells, and now that you know they're not being tested, and now that you know how deadly this can be, what a tremendous risk this can present, why are you still putting Ontarians' health at risk?

Hon Mr Harris: Nothing could be further from the truth. The rules and the regulations are there for testing water, and I can tell you that we expect those rules to be followed. I am sending that signal, and have, across Ontario. I'm happy to send it today. If there is any trailer park, if there is any gas station, if there is anybody who is providing water to the public who is not following those rules, they are going to be very sadly disappointed.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, that's not good enough. Public health inspectors are telling us that this water is not being tested. They've told you that over and over and over again.

You can't stand up in this House today and say that it is your expectation that those private operators will conduct those tests. You can't follow up on it. You don't have the inspectors necessary on the ground to do that kind of work.

Here's a letter that came from a top ministry official, writing on behalf of Dan Newman, your Minister of the Environment. This official says: "Thank you for your letter of February 1, 2000. The Honourable Dan Newman has asked that I respond on his behalf." She concludes with this paragraph, which is very telling, "As you can appreciate, there are many water works in the province that fall within our mandate and the ministry must deploy their staff where they obtain the best environmental protection and overall service to benefit the most people."

Do you know what she's telling us here, Premier? She's telling us that in the Ministry of the Environment today they don't have enough people to protect everyone's water, so they're trying to protect some people's water. That's the state of affairs inside the Ministry of the Environment today.

Premier, you know what the solution is. Why are you being so stubborn about this? It's a simple matter of saying that you went too far, you cut too many jobs, we don't have the capacity today to make sure that Ontario drinking water is safe and you're going to do the right thing, regardless of any political fallout. I want you right now to stand up and say you agree, you're going to hire 100 inspectors and enforcement officers for no other reason than that it is the right thing to do.

Hon Mr Harris: Clearly, we are committed to ensuring that all the resources are made available in as timely a fashion as we possibly can to meet all of the rules and regulations that are out there. In addition, I think in the wake of Walkerton there have been some who have suggested that the rules in Ontario are not strong enough, that we need stronger legislation, that we should have a review of that. We are doing that too. If there's anything that is broken within the Ministry of the Environment, we have committed to taking a look at it and to fixing it. It may be that 100 or 200 inspectors are required.

It may be that new procedures are required. It may be that new legislation is required. In the meantime, if you are aware of any well anywhere in the province serving the public that needs inspection and attention, let us know and we'll make sure that it's taken care of.

The Speaker: New question, leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier and it is about the quality of Ontario drinking water.

Thousands of Ontario families want to take their children camping this summer in an Ontario provincial park, but they're very worried by what they read about the quality of drinking water in Ontario parks. In fact, one of your own investigators says that when he goes to a provincial park, he doesn't drink the water. He says it's very scary.

Every day we learn more and more about how your government is doing less and less to protect the quality of our drinking water. Given the warnings from the Ministry of the Environment, what is your advice to the thousands of mothers and fathers who want to take their children camping this summer in an Ontario provincial park?

Hon Mr Harris: It's the same advice it would have been 10 years ago: If you're concerned about the water, boil it or take your own drinking water.

Mr Hampton: In my constituency, the medical officer of health now says, and this is for the first time, that in parks like Quetico, Blue Lake, Sandbar Lake, Ojibway, Pakwash and Lake of the Woods the water is not safe to drink. This is in addition to the boil-water advisories for over 700 fishing camps.

It isn't the Ministry of the Environment that's doing this testing; it's the medical officer of health who's using his own severely restricted budget to go out there and do the testing that you're not prepared to do, that your government has cut. What are you going to do to help people protect the quality of the drinking water? You seem to be throwing the responsibility off on to everybody else, including the citizens alone. What's your government doing?

Hon Mr Harris: When it comes to the provincial parks that we own, we are following the procedures that have been ongoing since the 1960s and the 1970s. We test and we re-test the water in Ontario parks on a weekly basis. It's well-established; it has been in place and is in place today. We take this matter very seriously. There is also a long-standing, well-developed public health program employing classified public health policy officers, seasonal environmental sanitation inspectors.

If there are lakes where there are cottages or provincial parks, the parks are required, if there's a notification the water is not safe to drink, to have that well posted, and it's put forward. That's the way your government did it, that's the way the Liberals did it, that's the way Bill Davis did it, that's the way we do it.

Mr Hampton: The problem has gone beyond that; we're now dealing with whole communities that are receiving boil-water advisories because the surface water has been contaminated.

Let's take a community like Red Lake or a community like Vermilion Bay or a community like Hudson, and there are dozens more in the province, where they have been advised by the medical officer of health, not by the Ministry of the Environment, that they're dealing with cryptosporidium and giardia. You might remember cryptosporidium. It made tens of thousands of people in Milwaukee ill in 1993 and killed over 100 people, and you can't treat it with chlorine. These communities don't have the money to put in a proper filtration system by themselves, and when they turn to your government, the Premier says, "Just boil your water."

Premier, is that your answer to people across Ontario, just boil water or buy water, that your government isn't responsible for anything? What is your government doing? Dozens of communities can't drink their water any more.

Hon Mr Harris: When it comes to a remote cottage or a provincial park, I gave you the policy we follow. There are 219 drinking water systems in 106 operating parks. Eight parks receive their water from municipal systems. The park is responsible. All drinking water is disinfected using sodium hypochlorite, chlorine; free available chlorine residual measures. We test that; it's there. If there is water, though, in these remote parks where there isn't water provided, then in some of the areas where there are no water systems, that information is provided on whether the water is safe to drink or not.

If it comes to municipalities, as you know, we have provided $200 million to play catch-up from the mess you left us when you were in government to allow municipalities and towns to upgrade their systems. We now are looking at whether more money is required. If there are municipal systems that need upgrading, then obviously that's something we're going to take a look at, both through the federal-provincial infrastructure program and through our own provincial infrastructure program.

Certainly if there is any town anywhere that has a system that they have concerns about, they should be putting plans in place to address that, and assistance will be available if it is beyond that municipality's means.

The Speaker: New question, leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: Premier, I have another question about water, and it concerns the actions of officials of your government endangering the drinking water in the township of West Perth. The township of West Perth has so little faith in your government's ability to protect its residents' water that it introduced a comprehensive set of local bylaws which, shockingly, your government is directly trying to overturn.

The township put a cap on the number of livestock that would be allowed on large-scale intensive farms, but your government has challenged the bylaw and has now taken the municipality to the Ontario Municipal Board. During that hearing, your staff reassured the OMB that things were in hand, but West Perth township Mayor John Van Bakel says that your government's current system requires one farmer to complain and report another farmer. He says that it is completely reactive, that there's nothing proactive happening.

Premier, if your government is not prepared to act to protect the surface water, why are you stopping municipalities from doing what they can to protect the surface water?

Hon Mr Harris: I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs can respond.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): As the honourable member might know, this is a matter that is before the OMB. I can report to this House that the government is taking a position at the OMB. We are taking a position that is consistent with the provincial policy statement, which is designed to protect environmental resources, including water.

Mr Hampton: Minister, the mayor of West Perth, who happens to be a farmer himself, says, "We've lost confidence in this government's ability to enforce." That's a direct quote.

During the OMB hearing, the mayor, who is a farmer, said he's simply trying to protect the township, and most of his ratepayers agree with him. The mayor says there are fewer family farms now in West Perth, but those that are there have far more livestock per acre of land than ever before. He has been worried about the effect factory farming might have on the community's ability to protect its water. Now that Walkerton has highlighted his concerns, he says he is more concerned than ever about the township's capacity to protect the water.

Minister, why are you before the OMB trying to strike down the bylaw of a municipality that is trying to do the job that your government won't do?

Hon Mr Clement: As the honourable member well knows, it is the position of this government to protect the provincial interest as enunciated in the provincial policy statements and in the Planning Act. There are ways to get at the problems that he is talking about, and there are ways to do so that are perfectly consistent with the interests of the public, which is clean water, clean air and clean soil, and there are also ways that contradict that. It is our position that there are ways to get at this problem.

I can tell you that my colleague the honourable Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has had a task force that has been going around to the rural municipalities to deal with intensive farming issues. There is a report due on that. Those are the kinds of things we as a provincial government can do. Those are the ways we can be helpful, not only in West Perth but throughout the province, on the particular issue the member is concerned about.

There are ways to do that, and we are doing so in a way that is protective of the provincial interest and is consistent with the general policies of cleaner air, cleaner water and cleaner soil.

COST OF ELECTRICAL POWER

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is to the Minister of Energy, and it concerns electricity rates. Two years ago, you promised the consumers of Ontario that you and your colleagues were going to enact an energy policy, an electricity policy, that would have at its core a competitive marketplace that was going to bring rates down. That was your promise. Now you are attacking municipalities for what they are doing, playing by the rules of the game as you wrote them, and most people are discovering that their rates are going up.

My question to you today is very simply this: In the last few weeks, many of my colleagues with names like McLeod and Gravelle and Lalonde and Crozier have come to me, as energy critic for the Liberal Party, and asked me why it is that large industrial consumers in their communities who are direct customers of Ontario Hydro are being told to get ready for a 20% rate increase later this fall. Why is that happening from your wholly-owned subsidiary, and what specifically are you going to do to deal with that very significant and surprising rate escalation from Ontario Hydro, a company that you control?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): First of all, in the 40 jurisdictions in the world that have introduced electricity competition, nowhere have rates gone up. Everywhere have rates gone down. Rates have gone down between 5% and 40%, whether that be the UK, Australia, New Zealand, 23 American states-40 jurisdictions in the world.

Clearly, with the cap and the freeze we've had on hydro rates for the five years that we've been in office, the best guarantee of lower rates in the future-and this is what we've always said-is competition and a competitive market in the generation of electricity.

Rates will go up if municipalities continue to do what they are doing. Some of them are holding the generators to ransom, because you have to use their wires to get your power to people's homes and businesses. We cannot allow them to double and triple the distribution rates simply to take that money and pad their municipal budgets. That can't be allowed. All the partners have to work together to make rates come down and allow us to introduce a competitive market in this province.

Mr Conway: It is a pathetic sight: Jim Wilson playing Charlie McCarthy to Bill Farlinger's Edgar Bergen, because the government promised one thing but is delivering something quite different. They promised competition, but they are not delivering competition. If you talk to people like Falconbridge and Inco and a host of other large and small industrial and residential consumers, they will tell you they are not seeing a competitive marketplace.

It's worse than that. Nobody expected that Ontario Hydro Retail was going to get bigger, not smaller. One of the reasons we're not seeing the kind of restructuring that would give consumer benefits on the retail side is that Jim Wilson is giving you a bigger, not a smaller, Ontario Hydro Retail because he rigged the rules in his policy in favour of his hydro monopoly.

My question to you is, what today are you prepared to offer the consumers, large and small, in this province? What are you prepared to do to remove the unfair advantages that you gave in your electricity Bill 35 to your companies, Hydro Generation and Ontario Hydro Retail, that are in the marketplace today acting as monopolists and gouging the hell out of large and small electricity consumers?

Hon Mr Wilson: I'll try and answer the questions here. First of all, we put in place two weeks ago a four-year transition program for those 136 companies that, by previous governments, were given special rates in the province, rates lower than Mrs Jones can get at her home in Alliston, rates lower than anyone else can get. It's unfair, but we are prepared, and we've told those companies there's a transition program in place until compe tition is in place and they have the ability to shop around for lower rates.

So we're going to wean those companies off their preferred rates until competition. There is no competition yet because the starting pistol only goes off at the end of this year or when the market opens. It will take three or four years until there is competition, and then those companies will be able to shop around. Those same companies-and I dare you to find one that doesn't agree with a competitive market-and the association of major power users in the province have urged this government to move and to move quickly to introduce competition. That's exactly what we're doing.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): My question today is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Yesterday I had the opportunity to attend the opening of Gatesview House in Scarborough. Gatesview House is run by the Rouge Valley Health System and provides housing and other supports for mental health patients in a community setting. I wonder if you could inform this House what the government has done to ensure that important services like this are available for mental health patients.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Our government has moved forward in order to ensure that individuals who suffer from serious mental illness have access to high-quality services right in their own community. As the member has just indicated, she did attend the opening yesterday of Gatesview House in Scarborough, which is run by the Rouge Valley Health System.

We want to make sure there is a continuum of care available for those people who suffer from serious mental illness. We did allocate a total of $45 million, and so far, $20 million has been awarded in order that we can have an additional 1,000 beds in Toronto, in Hamilton and in Ottawa. This is part of that move to provide the necessary housing for those individuals.

Ms Mushinski: Gatesview House has been made possible in part by the efforts of police officers like Community Relations Officer Barry Gyton of 42 division, who regularly deal with the mentally ill. In fact, Inspector Gary Ellis of 42 division has been working on a project that brings together front-line police officers and mental health workers. The project consists of mobile crisis units that help officers deal with mental health calls. Individuals can then get the mental health services they need, rather than being taken into police custody. What is your ministry doing to encourage community organizations to get involved to help deliver community-based mental health services?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Again, we are most anxious to ensure that there is a continuum of care provided for those individuals who suffer from mental illness, beginning with preventive care and then, of course, community-based services as well as institutional care. We have invested since 1995 a total of $150 million into additional mental health services, but particularly in the area of community-based funding, the amount of money that has been allocated since 1995 has increased by about 95%. It has gone from $239 million to $466 million.

In doing so in Toronto we do work with the community-based organizations, and we've actually set aside $25.1 million for community-based services. We now have the ACT teams who support the seriously mentally ill in the community 24 hours a day. We have the court diversion programs, we have crisis services, we have case management, and we also have support for families.

HOME CARE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Minister of Health. The Ontario Association of Community Care Access Centres released a report on the state of home care last week. The report tells us that more than 11,000 people are stuck on a waiting list for home care. They can't get homemaking or speech therapy or physiotherapy. In fact, they often can't even get the nursing services that are needed because people are being sent home from hospitals sooner.

They are people like Judy Jordan Austin, who was sent home after a quadruple bypass and spent $6,000 to get the home nursing care that your government is not providing. If you can't pay, you're one of the 11,000 who get stuck on a waiting list.

Every home care agency is looking at huge increases in the need for service. They can't even meet the existing needs, yet you put no new money into the budget for home care. Minister, the people you have made responsible for home care are telling you they can't meet the need without more resources. How will you respond to their cry for help?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The member knows full well that our government has made a tremendous commitment to increasing the level of funding that is available for services in our communities. In fact, we are ahead of any other province in Canada when it comes to support of our residents in the area of home care.

Let's take a look at Toronto, for example. In 1995, home care was receiving $110 million. I'm pleased to say that in the year 2000, home care in this city is receiving $230 million. That is an increase of $120 million and 105%.

In each and every community throughout this province since 1995 there have been tremendous increases in funding in order to ensure that our citizens get the highest funding per capita, when it comes to community services, of any province anywhere in Canada.

Mrs McLeod: What I know is what the people who take the calls day in and day out from people who need care are trying to tell you. They're trying to tell you that there are 11,000 people today, at this point in time, who are stuck on a waiting list and can't get the care they need. Some of these are people who have been sent home from hospital early because of your cuts to hospitals. Without nursing care, they'll be back in hospital again, with complications, and it will cost a lot more to provide care there.

Some of the people on the waiting list have had heart surgery or hip replacements, and if they can't get the physiotherapy, they're not going to recover properly. Some of them are frail elderly seniors, and without care they are going to have to go into long-term-care facilities, and you already have a waiting list of 18,000 for long-term-care beds. If those frail elderly seniors don't get the care while they are waiting for a long-term-care bed, they're going to have serious accidents, they're going to become ill, and then you'll have to provide care.

Minister, I think you know that the funding you're providing for home care doesn't meet the increased demands for care, and that's why your answer has been to ration home care. You've refused to deal with either the funding shortage or the staff shortages. I ask you again, as a start, if you are truly committed to providing care at home, will you make a commitment today to increase the home care budget to match the increased demand for services that exists now and to pay fair salaries for home care workers?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The member knows that we are very committed to ensuring the health and safety of all residents in the province of Ontario. I have already indicated that we spend the highest per capita in this province; it's about $115 per capita. The next highest is Manitoba, with $97 per capita. I'm also very pleased to indicate that currently we are spending about $1.5 billion on home and community services. We are also one of only three provinces that do not charge a copayment for personal care and homemaking services.

However, I understand that there is a report and I want to tell the member opposite that we will review each recommendation. We are always concerned, and if there is something more we need to do, I can assure the member that it would be our plan to continue to address those concerns, as we have in the past.

E-COMMERCE LEGISLATION

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question today is for the Attorney General. Last Tuesday you introduced the Electronic Commerce Act. I think this is indeed an excellent move by our government considering the technological advances that we've witnessed over the last few years. We need to make sure that our laws are up to date and accommodate our technological environment.

Minister, what are the benefits of Ontario enacting legislation to govern electronic commerce? A tough one.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I thank the member for Northumberland for that difficult question. Currently the laws are not clear as to whether particular contractual requirements are met by electronic communications. This legal uncertainty can slow the adoption of electronic processes and business transactions. It is this uncertainty that reduces the efficiency of operations in government and in the private sector, hurting the competitiveness of our economy in Ontario.

That is why we've introduced the Electronic Commerce Act. By making it possible to bring legal effect to electronic contracts, more people will engage in on-line business. This in turn will stimulate the economy. As consumers become more confident in engaging in e-business, companies will realize profitability and increase investment in the industry.

With all these global and technological forces at work, this government is ensuring the continued prosperity of Ontario with the introduction of the Electronic Commerce Act.

Mr Galt: Thank you very much, Minister, for that response. That's exactly what I was trying to explain to the opposition yesterday afternoon, but they didn't seem to quite understand it.

Like many of my constituents, I'm concerned with the lack of documentation when making a purchase over the Internet. There's a possibility, of course, of mistakes being made. Therefore, consumer confidence in using electronic commerce is still just a little bit shaky. How will consumers be protected by this proposed legislation?

Hon Mr Flaherty: The member for Northumberland has raised an important question about consumer protection in the electronic world. Consumers operating in an on-line world with no paper documentation certainly need protection. So the proposed legislation contains a special rule about mistakes made by individuals in dealing with an electronic agent; that is, an automated source like a Web site. It would allow individuals to cancel the mistaken transaction unless the merchant provided a mechanism to avoid or correct mistakes at the time of the order.

This encourages merchants to design sites with confirming messages like, "Are you sure?" Thus, consumer confidence in using electronic commerce will increase.

This government is dedicated to improving the way we do business. We are proud to be taking a leadership role in electronic commerce.

RETIREMENT HOMES

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): My question is to the minister responsible for seniors. Last week I told you that the city of Toronto's retirement home inspection program was going to be cancelled at the end of this month unless you send them a cheque. The hotline will be cancelled; the inspectors will be laid off. You have the power to make a difference here, and you shrugged off that question.

Last October I raised this issue in the House and sent the Minister of Health a letter with proposals to address the crisis of unregulated retirement homes. You did nothing to respond to those proposals.

Then you had your parliamentary assistant carry out closed-door consultations. When we were informed last week that there would be no report from that, I asked you to release her findings and recommendations, and you didn't answer that question.

Today we learn that the Ottawa-Carleton Council on Aging has requested a copy of the report and has been told that in fact there is no written report. The assistant deputy minister, Geoff Quirt, told them you were given a verbal report by your parliamentary assistant.

Minister, I want to know what your parliamentary assistant heard, I want to know what recommendations she made, and I want to know why you're sitting on this information and not making it public.

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, minister responsible for seniors and women): I'd like to thank the member opposite for the question. Let me tell you that my parliamentary assistant did go out across the province and talked to a great number of people, as did I in the office, to ensure that we understood everything-lots of information about rest and retirement homes across the province. I still continue to meet with a number of organizations about rest and retirement homes, including ORCA, the Ontario Residential Care Association. I've met with the city of Toronto.

I've also met with AMO on this issue. We continue to meet to ensure that we, along with our municipal partners in this issue, work towards safety for the seniors who live in rest and retirement homes in our province.

Ms Lankin: Well, if that's the case, Minister, then you will hear what I'm hearing, which is an overwhelming cry for the province to step in and regulate.

Last fall, there was an investigation in Toronto that revealed the most horrendous abuse and neglect in some of our homes: residents left to sit in their urine and feces for hours; residents sometimes tied into wheelchairs; the same food being served several days in a row; staff not giving residents their medication.

City inspectors put in place a response with a hotline and the inspectors found that conditions in 75% of these premises were substandard. But the municipality does not have the jurisdiction to regulate standards of care, Minister.

The deputy mayor of Toronto has called on you to regulate rest and retirement homes. Other municipalities are adding their voices to that very same request, and now we've learned that the regional council of Ottawa-Carleton is considering a motion tomorrow to demand that your government make the parliamentary assistant's report public.

Minister, word is out that this is all a sham and that you had already decided what you were going to do. Top health officials in this province have informed me that your government is going to proceed with self-regulation of retirement homes through the industry's own lobby group.

Will you assure us that you will not hand over this very important job to an industry that is not capable of protecting the interests of those frail and vulnerable seniors? Will you today deny that that is your plan?

Hon Mrs Johns: What I'm very happy to confirm today is that the Harris government is very concerned about the safety of our seniors all across the province.

We've entered into a number of different options and important policy decisions with respect to seniors and their safety. I think about elder abuse; it's the first time we've had a round table on this.

It's a little sacrosanct here today to think about what happened in the time of the NDP and the Liberals with respect to retirement homes. In 1987, the Liberals set up an advisory committee to look at this issue, and they did nothing. Early in the NDP mandate, the government appointed a commission to examine options for the regulation of retirement homes and, surprise, surprise, the report did not support provincial regulations or inspections, and yet here today, when both of those parties had the option to do something, they ask me what we're doing.

We continue to work towards ensuring that seniors in retirement homes are safe. We continue to work for alternatives that allow me, with the municipalities, to ensure that seniors are safe in their homes, and I continue to say that municipalities have a role here to ensure that they enforce bylaws that allow seniors to be safe in their retirement homes.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment.

Minister, as you would be aware, the city of Toronto is allowed right now to have its improperly treated waste from sewage treatment plants spread on farmland in Ontario. Even though it's against the Ministry of the Environment guidelines, you're allowing that. But today I want to ask you about another potentially life-threatening issue regarding hauled sewage, which is the untreated waste from holding tanks, from portable toilets and from septic tanks.

Knowing that it impacts on water, what assurance can you give the people of rural Ontario, in places like Hillsburgh and Mount Albert, that hauled, untreated sewage dumped on farmland does not pose a threat to the drinking water and the safety of drinking water in those areas and to public health?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): I can tell the member from St Catharines that we on this side take the protection of the environment very seriously, be it the protection of the water in this province, be it the protection of air or be it the protection of the land in the province. I can tell you that whatever decisions are made here, the protection of the environment is utmost in our minds.

With respect to the application and treatment of bio-solids, we have the strictest standards in Canada, and the application of sewage bio-solids is environmentally safe. It's of value to agricultural production as long as strong environmental standards are maintained.

Mr Bradley: You can have the strictest standards in all the world, but if you're not enforcing those standards, if you don't have the staff and resources to do it, it's useless.

It reminds me of the treated waste, in this case-maybe untreated waste in some cases-the sludge that is produced from an area where there was a most virulent kind of E coli, Walkerton. What are you doing with the sludge, the treated and untreated waste, that has accumulated from Walkerton now, that has that most virulent strain of E coli? What are you doing with that, and what do you intend to do with it?

Hon Mr Newman: I can assure the member opposite that each application is reviewed on a case-by-case basis prior to the issuing of a certificate of approval to ensure that it meets the strict requirements for protection of the environment and human health. Certificates of approval contain specific requirements controlling all aspects of material shipment and application to land, including separation distances from groundwater and surface water, quality of bio-solids and application rates.

LANDFILL

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): My question is also for the Minister of the Environment. I read in the newspaper today that there is a report going around indicating a possibility that the Keele Valley dump could remain open as late as 2006. My constituents of Thornhill and the constituents of the member for Vaughan-King-Aurora have indicated time and again that they do not want this dump to stay open any later than 2002. They have had to deal with having this dump in their backyard far too long. As the Minister of the Environment, what do you have to say about this report?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): From my understanding, this report was a staff-to-council report and is nothing more than advice to council. No decision has been made either way on the closure of the dump. The city of Toronto is well aware of the concerns of the residents of Vaughan and the surrounding areas. I will be encouraging the city to respect the wishes of these residents and to close the dump by 2002.

Mrs Molinari: Minister, there are some Toronto councillors out there responding to this report suggesting that keeping this dump open is good for the city of Toronto's bottom line. Surely this isn't a matter of dollars and cents. I would hope that these councillors would come to their senses and reassure the people of my riding and the surrounding ridings that keeping the dump open for another three to five years is unthinkable. Minister, what will you do if the city of Toronto refuses to close the dump by 2002?

Hon Mr Newman: The member for Thornhill is correct. Keeping the Keele Valley dump open for an additional three to five years is a bad idea. There are numerous reasons why environmentally it is the wrong thing to do. Fortunately the province does have legislative options to ensure that the Keele Valley dump is not extended beyond 2002. Let me reassure the member and her constituents that the province's support is behind them on this issue.

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. I have with me today a copy of a letter written to you by the mayor of Cumberland on March 13. In this letter to you he explained that he is very concerned about the complaints received from his residents that there is discharge of septic effluence in ditches and water ponds. He also was very concerned about the quality of drinking water in his community, so he called the MOE rep to check out the problem. After discussing the situation with the MOE rep, it was determined that many wells in this community were contaminated with coliform.

He then wrote to your office and asked for help under the provincial water protection fund. Like the township of Russell and the village of Casselman, who also had requested funding under this program, they were turned down by you. I must sadly tell you that in the village of Cumberland today there are 20 families having to boil their water, and they have been doing so for over a month.

Can you tell me, Minister, when can the mayor of Cumberland expect the necessary help and funding from your ministry to do the EA study and help to correct the water situation in the village of Cumberland? Or do the people of Cumberland not matter to you, like the people of Walkerton didn't matter to you? Does the mayor have to beg or can I tell him that help is on the way?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): In fact, we care about all the people in Ontario. That's what this government does. We care about the environment of this province and the people of this province.

I want to say to the member opposite that there are inspections being conducted of each water facility in our province. This year 630 facilities will be inspected by the end of the year. We're also ensuring that each and every certificate of approval for those facilities is reviewed and that there is only one certificate of approval in place for each facility. Beyond that, certificates of approval will be reviewed every three years thereafter, and that will include all the communities in the member's riding.

Mr Lalonde: Minister, this is exactly the type of answer I expect to hear from you. In your letter of May 11 to the mayor of Cumberland, you said you had no time to meet with him to discuss the village of Cumberland's water problems, and you told him to seek alternate sources of funding. The staff in your office have learned your message well. You are passing the buck.

They have told me that the mayor should contact the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, as he possibly could help them because he has $120 million under the Ontario small town and rural fund or, if that doesn't work, they suggested the mayor of Cumberland should contact the Minister of Finance, as funding for infrastructure is possibly available under the SuperBuild fund.

Minister, I suggest that you stop passing the buck. You know the expression "The buck stops here." Well, the buck stops with you, so before we have another Walkerton, I ask you once again, when can the people of Cumberland expect help from you, or are you going to pass the buck to someone else? Tell me, Minister, what do I tell the people of Cumberland? When will they get funding to correct the crisis?

Hon Mr Newman: I suggest to the member opposite that he tell the people of Cumberland that each and every water facility in our province will be inspected this year, each of the 630 facilities in this province. We're also going to ensure that any facility that is not in compliance is brought into compliance by a field order. The certificates of approval for all facilities are going to be reviewed, and three years after that they'll be reviewed again.

The provincial water protection fund was a $200-million fund over three years. We ensured that that money was accelerated to municipalities over a two-year period so that they could deal with water and sewage projects in their communities. Projects were evaluated on environmental and health needs.

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. Constituents of mine in Durham have been bringing to my attention the fact that there has been improper release of inmates from some provincial institutions. As members of the House will know, an inmate who has not properly been released has not fully paid their debt to society.

I believe public safety should be a focus of our government's policy, as you know it is. The Blueprint document outlined measures to show how seriously we take the matter of street and community safety. Minister, how concerned are you on the occasion when inmates are released early from prison?

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister of Correctional Services): I'd like to thank the member for Durham for the question. He rarely gets an opportunity to raise questions in the House, and I know that when he does it's a very important question to him and a very important question to the people he very dutifully represents.

I, of course, take this matter quite seriously, as frankly do all people in our ministry. Any number of improper releases, no matter how they occur or where they occur, is totally unacceptable, which is why in 1997 this government made the effort to start to track and measure these statistics and why we are now embarking as a ministry on a series of performance standards that will apply across all institutions in this province, no matter who will be running them, so that we can map very quickly and very carefully, and monitor very carefully, the performance of these institutions that relate to the very important issue of public safety.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much for both the compliment, Minister, as well as the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. On a more serious nature, with your opinion of improper releases, it's clear to me that you are on the side of community safety. The people of Ontario would like assurance that improper releases will not continue to be a problem in the future.

Minister, what concrete measures has your ministry taken to ensure me and my constituents and the people of Ontario that improper releases will not happen in the future?

Hon Mr Sampson: We're taking a number of steps, a number of initiatives. One which I spoke to in the first part of the question was of course the establishment of standards which were desperately lacking in the system and which will help us track performance and accountability in the system. The other, frankly, is a far more automated, integrated justice system that will allow us to make sure that ministry staff at the front line are spending less time filling out paperwork and more time doing their job and supervising the individuals under their care and custody.

We're going to simply use technology to help us do a better job, something the previous governments were not prepared to do but that we're prepared to invest in.

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): The forced amalgamation of Greenstone-the communities of Beardmore, Longlac, Geraldton and Nakina, as well as Caramat, Jellicoe and other communities-is very upsetting to a lot of people. Petitions keep coming in. I have 400 signatures here from the town of Longlac. The petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the corporation of the town of Longlac is an incorporated municipality; and

"Whereas commissioner Bob Gray felt that the amalgamation of the towns of Longlac, Geraldton and the townships of Beardmore and Nakina would be better served as one municipality; and

"Whereas the residents of the town of Longlac would like to be known as the municipality of Greenstone;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to ensure that the corporation of the town of Longlac becomes the ward of Greenstone in the province of Ontario."

The petition is signed by 400 people.

SAFE DRINKING WATER LEGISLATION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): The petitions are already pouring in in support of my private member's bill, the Safe Drinking Water Act. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the people of Ontario have the right to receive clean and safe drinking water; and

"Whereas clean, safe drinking water is a basic human entitlement and essential for the protection of human health; and

"Whereas the people of Ontario have the right to receive accurate and immediate information about the quality of water; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and the government of Ontario have failed to protect the quality of drinking water in Ontario; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and the government of Ontario have failed to provide the necessary financial resources to the Ministry of the Environment; and

"Whereas the policies of Mike Harris and the government of Ontario have endangered the environment and the health of the citizens of Ontario;

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

"(1) immediately restore adequate funding and staffing to the Ministry of the Environment;

"{2) immediately pass into law Bill 96, the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2000."

I completely agree with this petition and will affix my signature.

DURHAM COLLEGE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm again presenting a whole bunch of petitions here from my riding of Durham. This one is from the Lions Club of Newcastle, along with Albert Maxwell and Jeannie Carter and a number of other constituents. In fact, all of Durham probably supports this.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we request the Legislative Assembly to support Durham College in their bid for university status;

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

"We feel for the economic well-being of Durham a university is necessary. We strongly support the bid by Durham College to achieve this status in the immediate future."

I bring this to the attention of the House and to Minister Cunningham, who is here today.

SAFE STREETS LEGISLATION

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Bill 8, the squeegee bill, was never intended to prevent Ontario charities from holding roadside toll events as fundraisers; and

"Whereas local police departments and municipalities do not have the right to supersede legislation and give permission for these events to take place; and

"Whereas many Ontario service clubs and charities have traditionally used roadside toll events to assist them in meeting their charitable commitments; and

"Whereas Bill 8, the squeegee bill, now prevents these worthy causes from benefiting from these fundraising activities; and

"Whereas Bill 64,

An Act to amend the Safe Streets Act and the Highway Traffic Act, will rectify this situation;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support Bill 64."

I very happily have signed my signature to this petition and will give it to Maria Dombrowsky, the page.

KARLA HOMOLKA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"That the government of Ontario will:

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

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

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

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

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

HIGHWAY 138

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I have a petition from many residents of Ontario.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Highway 138 is the responsibility of the province. The highway is currently in disrepair, with numerous ruts and potholes. Motorists who drive all types of vehicles have noticed the poor state of the highway. These deplorable conditions have made driving a hazard and must be repaired to avoid tragic accidents.

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

"That the government of Ontario provide more provincial funding for the repair and maintenance of Highway 138."

I've also signed the petition.

FARMFARE PROGRAM

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have petitions that read as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario introduced farmfare on September 21, 1999, to supplement their workfare program, forcing social assistance recipients to work on farms for their benefits;

"Whereas the Harris government of Ontario has not provided for any consultation or hearings regarding this initiative;

"Whereas the Harris government has excluded agricultural workers from protections under the provincial labour code by passing Bill 7;

"Whereas this exclusion is currently being appealed under the Canadian Charter of Rights for infringing on the right of association and equal benefit of law;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to retract the farmfare program until hearings have been held and to reinstate the right of agricultural workers to allow them basic human rights protection under the labour code of Ontario."

I proudly add my name to those of these petitioners as I am in support of this petition.

LORD'S PRAYER

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): My petition reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

LORD'S PRAYER

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

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

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

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

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

I'll sign my name to that as well.

WATER EXTRACTION

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we strenuously object to permits to take water being issued by the Ministry of the Environment without adequate assessment of the consequences and without adequate consultation with the public and those people and groups who have expertise and interest;

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

"We request a moratorium on the issuing of permits to take water for non-farm, commercial and industrial use and the rescinding of all existing commercial water taking permits that are for bulk or bottled water export, outside of Ontario, until a comprehensive evaluation of our water needs is completed. An independent non-partisan body should undertake this evaluation."

This petition is signed by hundreds of people from my riding, and I very happily sign my name to this petition. I will be handing it to the legislative page Stephanie.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Tony Martin): Further petitions, member for Thunder Bay-Superior North-sorry, the member for Hamilton West.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I'm going to get one of those rotating lights and a siren over here.

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): We thought you were gone already.

Mr Christopherson: Yes, I didn't leave, you know; I decided to stay.

SAFE DRINKING WATER LEGISLATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the people of Ontario have the right to receive clean and safe drinking water; and

"Whereas clean, safe drinking water is a basic human entitlement and essential for the protection of public health; and

"Whereas the people of Ontario have the right to receive accurate and immediate information about the quality of water; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and the government of Ontario have failed to protect the quality of drinking water in Ontario; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and the government of Ontario have failed to provide the necessary financial resources to the Ministry of the Environment; and

"Whereas the policies of Mike Harris and the government of Ontario have endangered the environment and the health of the citizens of Ontario;

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

"

(1) Immediately restore adequate funding and staffing to the Ministry of the Environment; and

"

(2) Immediately pass into law Bill 96, the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2000."

I add my name to those of these petitioners.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I have many more petitions in very strong opposition to the amalgamation of Greenstone. The petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is signed by almost every resident in Nakina. I'm pleased to add my name to the petition.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

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

"Whereas the Kinsmen/JS MacDonald school is slated for closure,

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

"To direct the Upper Canada District School Board to remove the notice of closure for the Kinsmen/JS MacDonald special school facility.

"Since 1963 the special education facility has adequately served the needs of those students requiring special education programs and services throughout Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh.

"Presently, the Kinsmen school meets the needs of 45 children ranging from minor learning disabilities, behavioural to more complex multi-challenges."

I have also signed the petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Mr Clark, on behalf of Mrs Witmer, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 68,

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

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

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We have been attempting to reason out the clock tonight, and because we've gone into debate late it has been more difficult than we had thought.

The government would like to ask for unanimous consent to have 20 minutes for the government to speak, 10 minutes by the leadoff speaker and 10 minutes by the Minister of Health to sum up, and the rest of the time split between the other two parties, which would give 55 minutes each to the other two parties. I would ask for consent to have no questions or comments after speakers and I would ask further consent to extend the clock beyond 6 o'clock to give both of the opposition parties the opportunity to speak for 55 minutes each.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Tony Martin): Do we have unanimous consent?

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: My understanding was that the government had agreed to allow the third party to have an hour's time, and I can certainly appreciate their desire to have that. My understanding is that the government, since that arrangement was made, has reneged on their undertaking to the third party. The other point to bear in mind is that the government made the rule changes that have allowed this situation to crop up.

That being said, it is our desire to get this bill finished tonight, and I'm prepared to accept that provided we retain our full hour. We're prepared to go the extra time. We have enough members in our caucus who need and want the opportunity to speak. You're asking for another 20 minutes after 6 o'clock. I think that's a fair compromise on everybody's part.

Hon Mr Sterling: I think the delay, in fairness, was caused by the demonstration and clearing of the gallery. That probably delayed us by 15 or 20 minutes today.

Therefore, I seek unanimous consent for the government to take 20 minutes: 10 minutes leadoff by Mr Clark and 10 minutes summation by the Minister of Health. I seek consent that each other party have 60 minutes to debate the issue and I seek consent to extend the clock beyond 6 of the clock to complete the debate as outlined.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): Are you going to defer the vote?

Hon Mr Sterling: If you want to defer the vote, that's fine by us as well. The consent also included no questions or answers with regard to the debate after each person. So we will be deferring the vote as well.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): Just on this, Mr Speaker, since we've got into a little bit of dialogue on it, I want the record to reflect the fact that we do not have time allocation on this. It was sent out after first reading. I think it's only the second bill we've done that with. My critic the deputy leader of the NDP has spent an incredible amount of time, and I think members, when they're speaking today, will probably-I wouldn't be surprised-reflect on that from the other benches.

We have worked as co-operatively as we possibly can because of the importance of this issue and the sense we had from the government that they were not seeking to ram something through, but were looking for a thoughtful review on a most important issue.

Having said that, one of the few things we said we definitely had to have at the end of the day was our opportunity, especially in the third party where sometimes, depending on the rotation and how things turn out, we can end up with little or no time whatsoever. There was a request that at the very least we would receive our hour on third reading so that our critic would have an opportunity to put our position forward.

There's been a little bit of discussion here. We're prepared to accept further amending of the understanding, providing we have that hour and providing the vote will not take place, because we have members who are on standby to vote at 5:5