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

October 23, 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-Oct-23 vol. A (PDF)

L093A - Mon 23 Oct 2000 / Lun 23 oct 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PREMIER'S VISIT TO SUDBURY

FEDERAL ECONOMIC POLICY

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION FUNDING

PORNOGRAPHY

VOLUNTEERS

LABOUR DISPUTE

LEGISLATIVE STAFF

HEALTH CARE

MUNICIPAL REPORT CARDS

SPEAKER'S RULING

VISITORS

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

FLUOROCARBONS

RECYCLING

HEALTH CARE

ENERGY RATES

ORGANIZED CRIME

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

ONTARIO WHOLE FARM RELIEF

WOMEN'S CENTRES

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION FUNDING

EDUCATION FUNDING

JAIL CLOSURES

MINING INDUSTRY

NATIVE FORESTRY ISSUES

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

ENVIRONMENTAL BILL OF RIGHTS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

PENSION FUNDS

FRAIS DE TRANSPORT AUX FINS MÉDICALES

WATER EXTRACTION

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

FARMFARE

HUNTING IN WILDERNESS PARKS

OPPOSITION DAY

WATER QUALITY

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PREMIER'S VISIT TO SUDBURY

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): The Premier will be slithering into my community to make a rare public appearance this week, not to announce an equal travel reimbursement policy for northern cancer patients, nor to promise he'll repay the Sudbury Regional Hospital his three-year-old, $10.6-million debt in unpaid restructuring money. He won't be in Sudbury to acknowledge he has a responsibility to help defray huge costs associated with municipal restructuring, nor is it his plan to commit funding to help build a new water treatment plant to replace the current centuries-old facility that has caused water problems for south-end residents for years.

He won't be apologizing for ridiculing northerners and dismissing us as malcontents because we didn't want Toronto's garbage dumped in our area; and he won't admit to a change of heart about his responsibility as Premier to curtail rising fuel costs; nor will he reverse his government's dangerous decision to privatize air ambulance paramedics.

He will be in Sudbury visiting our community with his hand out at a $150 fundraising dinner. If you count the number of times the Premier has visited our area, you will know what Sudburians know: that almost every visit is made for the purpose of begging for money to maintain his extravagant, lavish lifestyle.

I urge the Premier to have a change of heart, priorities and ethics. Premier, use this visit to pay your debt to our hospital and provide desperately needed money; use this trip to direct $24 million into the municipal restructuring debt that you have created; and use this trip to end health care apartheid for northerners.

FEDERAL ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): When the provinces and federal government originally signed the Canada health and social transfer, the agreement called for the federal government to provide funding of 50 cents on every health care dollar spent. That funding has reached an all-time pathetic low in 2000, to a point where the federal government is providing only 11 cents of every health care dollar spent here in Ontario.

Our Premier and our Minister of Health have worked tirelessly on behalf of all Canadians to have funding restored to a more realistic level, despite the fact that the federal government sits with billions in surplus because of revenues from the strong economic growth in provinces such as Ontario and Alberta, and despite the Liberal opposition's not supporting the Premier's health care resolution in the House back in April, and despite the Leader of the Opposition's complete failure to work with the Premier to have Ontarians' federal tax dollars spent on health care.

Our Premier has shown commitment in leading all of Canada's Premiers into shaming Jean Chrétien into agreeing to add federal health care dollars into our system just prior to a federal election, and he did this partially by investing in health care ads. The ad buster over there disapproved.

The new federal funding after five years will still not be back to pre-Chrétien levels, but now Jean Chrétien is spending millions of dollars on partisan advertising trying to take credit for an agreement he was shamed into signing. The people of Ontario would like to hear the opposition leader comment on our tax dollars being used on federal partisan advertising.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): Let's face it, Bill 132, introduced by the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, permits private universities to set up shop in Ontario. She said, "It's about providing students with a wider choice." She goes on to say, "This is big business" and "So why would we get involved?" Education is not a business. It's about providing students with skills to compete in this competitive labour market.

I have a great deal of respect for the minister, but she has been led down the garden trail by a government which has created a crisis in the educational system. This was their intent in all of their policies. They said, "We need to create a crisis," and that is exactly what they've done on the Mike Harris watch. Tuition fees have gone up by 60%; student indebtedness is, on average, $25,000; there have been a plethora of additional incidental fees that students are now paying.

Now that the students have more choices, does this really mean they have viable options? The operative word here is "options"-options that are viable and valuable, which is highly important as we enter the new millennium. There's a demand for skilled professionals in this highly skilled workforce. Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals support increased investment in our public colleges and universities, not passing the buck to private operators whose main motive is to make a profit. We don't support private universities that will extract funds away from public institutions.

Where is the promise Mike Harris has offered, that every qualified student would have a space in our colleges and universities? That seems to be gone, and they should be reminded about their promise they have not kept.

PORNOGRAPHY

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): I'd like to ask for unanimous consent to wear a white ribbon to commemorate the 12th White Ribbon Campaign Against Pornography.

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

Mr DeFaria: Today marks the first day of the 12th annual White Ribbon Campaign Against Pornography week, organized by the group known as Canadians Addressing Sexual Exploitation. The ribbon I wear today was given to me by members of the Catholic Women's League at St Patrick's parish, a church in my riding of Mississauga East. People across Canada are being asked to wear white ribbons to show their support for the ongoing battle against the degrading and demeaning pornography. Wearing a white ribbon this week is a way of expressing our concerns about the harm pornography has on individuals, families and communities, and especially on our children.

Today, more than ever, pornography that is illegal and depraved is available to anyone with access to the Internet. I am pleased to tell you that this year the Peel Regional Police have launched a cyberspace program which is in the schools already to teach children from grades 3 to 10 how to use the Internet safely. I commend the initiatives made by volunteer organizations in our community that have worked hard to raise awareness on this issue and bring about change.

I ask all members to join me in wearing a white ribbon this week to show our solidarity with them and to express our deep concerns about this problem.

VOLUNTEERS

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): On October 17 I was very proud to join 150 very special people in my riding for the Jane and Finch community and family recognition evening. The Jane and Finch community is an area of our city where many new immigrants continue to settle and many working people live in dense neighbourhoods. It is an area where individuals and families need help and supports.

How fitting it was to hold a celebration honouring its volunteers under the banner, "Volunteering, a great way to grow." There has been tremendous gain and growth indeed, due to the labours of these special people. Here is how the volunteer experience was described by these selfless and dedicated individuals, the true heroes of the Jane and Finch community: "Volunteerism leads to employment"; "You feel better about yourself and your community"; "You'll learn better parenting skills"; "One gains an incredible understanding of community participation"; "You give for the sake of others"; "You'll learn and grow because you don't take your responsibilities lightly."

I take this opportunity to express my congratulations to all the Jane-Finch Community and Family Centre volunteers, and a great big thank you to Richard de Gaetano, the outgoing president, for nine years of selfless leadership, commitment, passion, dedication and openness. All of you have done a tremendous job. You have given your best. You have once again made our community a very proud one.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): It's been 84 days since the strike between Mine Mill/CAW and Falconbridge began in our community. This strike is having a profound negative impact on the workers, their families and the community at large.

The fact is, it didn't have to be this way. This Harris government repealed the NDP government's ban on scab labour. Now there's no incentive for companies like Falconbridge to sit down and seriously negotiate a new collective agreement. Instead, the company is using its management and contract workers to continue production at the smelter, taking jobs away from those who are legitimately on strike.

In court several weeks ago, in an attempt to get an injunction against the union on picketing activity, Falconbridge said it was operating at 60% of its usual capacity. If that's true-and the testimony was given under oath-it's no wonder there are no negotiations going on. If you can replace your own workers with scab labour, why negotiate? This has been the problem since the start of the strike.

Last Friday, Falconbridge claimed the strikers were picketing on company property. They demanded picket shacks be removed by 6 am this morning. If not, strikers would be charged with trespassing. Of course, there's no proof that anyone is trespassing, as Falconbridge still needs to prove where their property begins and ends. This is another example of how far the company is willing to go to enflame the situation.

On day one of the strike, they brought in a southern Ontario security firm to survey picket lines with mounted and hand-held cameras on a 24-hour basis. They lost a court injunction in September and now they're trying to drag in the Sudbury Regional Police on unfounded allegations of trespass.

Time to get back to the bargaining table. Time to end scab labour.

LEGISLATIVE STAFF

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I rise today in this House to show my appreciation for the very sensitive, accountable service that is provided for all who work at or visit Queen's Park by our legislative security services. Security at Queen's Park is handled in a most efficient manner. If ever you have to contact an officer, your call is responded to very quickly. Many of us who work here have overheard officers handle very difficult situations in a very professional manner. Employees or members of the public are treated humanely, equally, fairly and with respect in an environment of open communication.

We feel confident that social order problems or problems of compliance with the law are identified, thus providing us with a safe environment in which to work, often into the wee hours of the night. The commitment and dedication of the security officers at Queen's Park deserves to be recognized. I am very proud of the work of our legislative security services.

Please join me today in thanking this group of men and women who provide us with an excellent security service.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I want to take this opportunity to congratulate all those who helped open the new nurse practitioner office in the riding of Brant this week, particularly the Victorian Order of Nurses, Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk branch; the Brant County Health Unit; the Children's Aid Society of Brant; the Brant and Brantford Housing Authority; the Eagle Place Neighbourhood Association; and the Brantford Parks and Recreation Department.

Stepping Stones Resource Centre is one example of how nurse practitioners in the province can play a vital role in providing primary health care, especially with the severe shortage of doctors we have. The province has about 400 nurse practitioners, of whom about 70% are unemployed or underemployed. However, they cannot and they do not want to replace family physicians.

I must continue to bring to the attention of this House the prolonged doctor shortage existing in this province. Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal caucus have offered concrete solutions. However, these shortages continue to be a stark reminder that this government is not doing all it can to correct the situation.

In my riding of Brant, there are currently 18 vacancies for general practitioners in Brantford and three GP vacancies in Paris. Due to these shortages, there are tens of thousands of people in Brant without a family doctor. In fact, in Eagle Place, where I grew up and where my mother still resides, there are 8,000 residents with only one family physician. That is why I want to express publicly again my disappointment with this government for their continued lack of action for the people of Ontario.

MUNICIPAL REPORT CARDS

Mr David Young (Willowdale): I rise today to offer congratulations to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and to offer my support for the recently introduced municipal report cards. This is an idea whose time has come.

One of the hallmarks of the Mike Harris government has been our focus on increasing and strengthening accountability. These new municipal report cards will enhance municipal accountability and give taxpayers more information on how their municipal tax dollars are being spent.

However, not everyone in this Legislature likes the idea of increased accountability. In fact, our newest member, the member for Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot, has made it clear he does not care for them. The member has offered two criticisms on this initiative. In a statement to the House last week, he said it would be better if we worked with our municipal partners. Well, guess what? We did. Over 40 municipalities in Ontario helped to develop these report cards through trial runs.

The Windsor Star also notes that the member proposed provincial reports cards-a fine idea. However, I remind the Liberals that in this place we are held accountable by the auditor, the Ombudsman, the Integrity Commissioner, the estimates process, the public accounts process and many other mechanisms.

We in this Legislature have grown accustomed to Liberals being contrary for the sake of being contrary. However, in this instance, what we're really observing is the Liberal agenda, which opposes accountability.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): On Monday October 16, 2000, the member for Brant rose on a point of privilege to indicate that his rights as a member were infringed upon because he was denied entry to the Genest Detention Centre for Youth on October 5, 2000. The member for Niagara Centre and the Minister of Community and Social Services also made submissions.

The member for Brant referred to subclause 103(1)(b)(iv) of the Child and Family Services Act, which reads as follows: "A child in care has a right ... to speak in private with and receive visits from ... a member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario or of the Parliament of Canada."

In response to this point, let me say that the statutory provision does not state that the member has a right to speak and visit with a child in care; it states that the child in care has the right to speak with and receive visits from a member. In short, the right belongs to the child in care, not the member. Further, the jurisdiction for interpreting the right of the child in care belongs to the courts of law, not to the Speaker.

The member for Brant also referred to

section 59 of the Ministry of Correctional Services Act, which reads as follows: "Every member of the Legislative Assembly is ... entitled to enter and inspect any correctional institution, community resource centre or other facility established or designated under this act for any purpose related to the member's duties and responsibilities as a member of the Legislative Assembly, unless the minister determines that the institution, community resource centre or facility is insecure or an emergency condition exists in it."

The member for Brant, and subsequently the member for Niagara Centre, suggested that the Speaker should extend the rationale of

section 59 of the Ministry of Correctional Services Act, which deals with adult correctional facilities, to find that the member has a similar right to visit young offender facilities covered by the Child and Family Services Act.

Again, were I to do as the member suggests, I would have to interpret the law, something that our precedents and parliamentary authorities indicate the Speaker should avoid doing. As has been confirmed by my predecessors in this chair, and Speakers in many parliaments elsewhere,

interpretations of law should best be left to the courts.

I must point out that the matter raised by the member for Brant relates to activities that occurred away from this chamber and were unconnected with the member's parliamentary duties. The procedural authorities and a multitude of precedents make it clear that privilege attaches only to a member's parliamentary duties and not to subsidiary duties away from Parliament.

Therefore, I find that a prima facie case of privilege has not been established.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I am pleased to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have a group of visiting dignitaries from Portugal, who are here for a major cultural celebration with the Portuguese-Canadian community. I am sure all members would like to welcome our guests from Portugal.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Motions? The government House leader.

Applause.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): Wait until they hear the motion, Mr Speaker, and you won't hear much clapping.

I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Monday, October 23, Tuesday, October 24, and Wednesday, October 25, 2000, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker: Mr Sterling moves that, pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i)-

Interjection: Dispense.

The Speaker: Dispense? 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.

VISITORS

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): On a point of order, Speaker: I think that all members of the House would want to join with me in welcoming in the gallery the mother and sister of page Andrzej Samoraj: Dr Barbara Mederski and Andrew's sister Krystyna.

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): On a point of order, Speaker: I also welcome the family of Mikhail Ferrara, our page from Hamilton Mountain. They are in the gallery as well. Welcome.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question today is for the Minister of the Environment. Late last week the people of Timiskaming dodged a bullet, no thanks to you whatsoever. In fact, I will take this opportunity to congratulate my caucus colleague for his exceptional work on this matter in defence of his own community.

Minister, your pathetic abdication of responsibility in managing this issue is matched only by another area of pathetic abdication of responsibility and that's the fact that you have taken our province out of the business of the three Rs. This year we're going to have revenues in the neighbourhood of $62 billion. What I want you to tell us is, how much money are we going to be spending on putting forward a program of the three Rs, and in particular providing leadership to our municipalities and the private sector when it comes to the three Rs? There is $62 billion. How much money are you going to spend on the three Rs in Ontario?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment: The Leader of the Opposition would know that we've formed the Waste Diversion Organization. That organization has completed its final report, and our government continues to be committed to the blue box program. We want to ensure through this that it remains sustainable over the long term. That's why we had the WDO put in place.

In fact, on November 3, 1999, the ministry announced the establishment of the WDO, which is a partnership of government, municipalities and industry, with a commitment of $14.5 million from its members to help fund municipal blue box programs and other waste diversion programs in our province. That would include, among other things, items like composting and other special household waste depots that have been going on. In addition, the WDO was asked to develop options for a sustainable funding formula and to provide up to 50% of the net operating costs for municipal blue box programs in our province.

Mr McGuinty: It's wonderful to hear what the WDO has been recommending, but you in fact have been spending no money, zero cents in Ontario, on the three Rs. You came up with $190 million for political partisan advertising, but you can't come up with a cent for waste diversion programs.

Before you people came on the scene here, we were spending significant dollars when it came to the three Rs in Ontario. We spent $30 million to help municipalities with the blue box program. We spent all kinds of money for our municipal reduction and reuse grants. We helped household hazardous waste collection grants; we put some money into that program. We helped out with the industrial three Rs for their reduction, reuse and recycling programs. There was a grant to the Association of Municipal Recycling Coordinators.

We've got $62 billion in revenue. We are going to have more and more cases where our municipal partners are going to be coming under heavy fire, tremendous pressure to put more waste into dumps, and you're not putting a single penny into diversion programs. How can you possibly justify that? In this time of unprecedented prosperity, these skyrocketing revenues, you haven't got a cent for the three Rs.

Hon Mr Newman: The Leader of the Opposition is right in only one regard and that's simply this: they spent all kinds of money, because that is the Liberal way. Unfortunately, they had nothing to show for it, nothing positive to show with respect to the environment, and that's shameful on behalf of the Liberal Party.

But again, the WDO, the Waste Diversion Organization, was asked to develop options for a sustainable funding formula to provide up to 50% of the net operating costs of the municipal blue box program in our province. In March 1999, the LCBO provided $4 million to assist municipalities in offsetting the 1998 costs associated with recycling wine and liquor beverage containers in the blue box program area. In March 2000, the Waste Diversion Organization provided an additional $4 million to assist with the 1999 costs, and funding to assist with the 2000 costs will be provided by the WDO in the fall of this year.

Mr McGuinty: It's interesting that the minister brings up this issue of the environmental levy collected by the LCBO. This minister should know that for every year in the last six, the LCBO has been collecting $40 million. That's a total of $240 million which is supposed to be dedicated to recycling. You've only used-in fact, you haven't even spent this; you've promised to use-$4 million out of $240 million. What you've been doing, effectively, is stealing $240 million through the environmental levy at the LCBO under the pretext, the guise, of dedicating that to environmental purposes.

Again, $62 billion in revenue this year, including $240 million collected through the environmental levy at the LCBO. The people up in Timiskaming just dodged a bullet. We have no diversion programs today in Ontario. We've got a government that is not promoting the three Rs. I ask you again, how can you justify not being in the business of the three Rs in the 21st century in Ontario?

Hon Mr Newman: The total net cost of the blue box program is currently estimated to be approximately $46 million. Costs change according to municipal recycling service contracts and the revenues received from the sale of recyclable materials collected. I don't think the member opposite got into that.

But the fact of the matter is, the government established the Waste Diversion Organization to provide municipalities with blue box funding support and, more importantly, the tools they need to achieve greater waste diversion. Waste diversion is an important aspect of the long-term sustainability of our environment, and I would encourage all municipalities to include these alternatives in their waste management plans.

The province is committed to reducing waste by 50%. We think the WDO recommendations will help us to achieve that goal.

FLUOROCARBONS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. The Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy says you're all bluster; that there's lots of sizzle, no steak.

I want to talk to you about CFCs, though, because I think all members of the House will probably be under the impression that chlorofluorocarbons had been phased out in Ontario many years ago.

Interjection: In all the world.

Mr Bradley: Exactly. I think, as the former minister says, in all the world.

But the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy says that is not the case. They say the province may give recalcitrant industries that had six years to phase out CFCs from their operations, but failed to do so, an exemption that will last until the industries say they can comply. The government has decided to reward non-compliance on one of the most serious environmental issues confronting the planet. This decision devalues the accomplishments of industry leaders like Nortel, who figured out how to phase out CFCs years ago.

Can the minister tell us how on earth, in the year 2000, anybody is allowed to use CFCs and to not phase them out?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): In fact, the report that I think the member opposite is talking about spoke about various issues within the Ministry of the Environment with respect to the budget. What the report also does is look at other aspects with respect to monitoring within the environment. It also talks about enforcement. It deals with many, many issues.

But the protection of the environment is something we take very seriously within the province. When you look at what the federal Liberal government did with Camco in Hamilton by granting an exemption, it shows that they are not showing any leadership at all on the issue of greenhouse gas emissions. They talk a big story. Last week in Quebec City they spoke a lot about taking action. But the bottom line is that they were granting exemptions left, right and centre throughout industries in this province, in this country, and are showing no leadership with respect to the environment.

Mr Bradley: Chlorofluorocarbons, CFCs, as most of us know them, are very damaging to the ozone layer. If you look at the ozone layer up there, it is there to protect us from such things as radiation that causes skin cancer on a much more frequent basis and causes other problems for us, damage to crops and things of that nature.

What I'm asking you is why you haven't phased out chlorofluorocarbons. I thought you had done so by now. You've talked about a lot of other things. You've pointed the finger somewhere else. You're looking frantically at the sidelines, hoping somebody's going to send you a note in to tell you what's happened. All I'm asking you is, why haven't you phased out chlorofluorocarbons? I thought they were gone a long time ago.

Hon Mr Newman: I say to the member opposite that nothing is farther from the truth. In fact, the word that you used was "may." That's what you used; you used the word "may." "Just because it's in a report, I guess it's true," according to you. But you're wrong in this fact again.

Mr Bradley: I was going to go to other parts of the report, but the minister obviously is not aware that he is allowing these people to phase out, over a long period of time, CFCs in this province. He's saying somebody's wrong.

What you're saying is that the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy, which does a very detailed analysis of government policy, doesn't know what it's talking about.

I'm saying to this minister, as the former minister says, we've got to be the only jurisdiction in the world that allows people to continue to use CFCs. When are you going to end the possibility of any company using CFCs?

Hon Mr Newman: Again, the member opposite was using the word "may." What needs to be noted is that we take the protection of the environment very seriously as a government. You know that. We've taken strong measures in this regard, unlike the federal government, which is granting exemptions left, right and centre throughout all sectors of the economy with respect to greenhouse gas emissions.

RECYCLING

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. I want to ask the Minister of the Environment why it is that, while he was pushing the disastrous Adams mine proposal, over the last eight months he has ignored all of the exciting technological advances in terms of the recycling and reuse of municipal waste.

Last Thursday, I visited a facility in Guelph, a facility that's designed by Ontario engineers and patented by a Canadian corporation, that shows in their demonstration facility how you can recycle the aluminum, the steel, the paper, the glass; how you can then take the resulting organic waste and process it so that the methane gas is used to produce electricity and the material that is left after the process can be used on peat, in gardens and on farmers' fields.

It's been an exciting proposal, but in eight months you've refused to answer their phone calls. Why, Minister, are you ignoring all of the potential for recycling and reuse of municipal waste?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): Protecting the environment is a responsibility that I take very seriously. My ministry has a department that is dedicated to encouraging new green industries, like the industry that the member opposite is talking about.

I can tell you first-hand that in March of this year, about two weeks after I was appointed minister, I was in Vancouver. I saw the technology there at the Globe 2000 conference. I'm very familiar with that technology.

I know that you were in Guelph on Thursday wanting a minister of the crown to endorse a particular product or service. I'm not prepared to endorse any product or service in this province.

Mr Hampton: No, I'm not asking you to endorse any product or service. Here is the reality: the city of Montreal is coming to visit this facility because they're interested in recycling, reuse and composting. They're not interested in sending it to a landfill.

The US Environmental Protection Agency, for the first time ever, is going to come to another jurisdiction to study the technology for the purpose of certification for US use, for use in American cities, and the Harris government won't even return the phone calls, won't even return the letters.

Minister, why are you ignoring an Ontario-designed solution, a Canadian-patented solution, that will allow us to almost totally, if not substantially, reduce the amount of municipal waste that will have to go to landfill sites? Are you so tied to your friends at WMI that you refuse to look at the progressive alternatives?

Hon Mr Newman: I think it's great that cities are looking at what other jurisdictions have available. I think it's wonderful that the city of Montreal is choosing to look at this type of technology.

I understand right now Mayor Lastman, the mayor of the city of Toronto, is in Edmonton looking at what they're doing with respect to compost. But the fact of the matter is that municipalities have the responsibility for long-term waste management plans. I would encourage you to encourage other municipalities to look at all other options and alternatives that are available, such as this.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Final supplementary?

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. What are you doing? Are you taking any leadership here? The answer is no.

But minister, on another subject: Today the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy released their report, their fifth-year report on your government's environmental record-yet another report to add to the long list of reports that say your government has failed to protect the environment and the health of Ontarians.

Minister, this report tells us that since you came to office, the Ministry of the Environment's budget has been cut by a whopping 60%. That's both operating and capital combined. Facts and figures don't lie. Each damning report makes it clear that your government cannot and is not protecting Ontario's environment and the health of its people.

Minister, I'm asking you today: as a result of this report, will you commit to hire back at least 500 of the 1,000 staff that you have let go so we can protect the health of our citizens in Ontario?

Hon Mr Newman: This government is dedicated to the protection of the environment through good management, through strict standards and through strong penalties.

I think it's important that we look at historical trends to see functions that have been retained as programs and see how they've changed and look at how staff numbers and functions have changed. Contrary to what the member opposite says, any allegations of reductions of inspection and investigative staff have not happened. The reality is that there have been no reductions made to investigative staff within the ministry. Compliance funding has been reduced, but almost half the ministry's workforce, compared to only 40% during the NDP's government, deals with investigative functions.

The truth of the matter is the Liberals played smoke and mirrors with the ministry's budget by transferring in responsibilities such as the Niagara Escarpment Commission in 1991-92. The NDP continued when they merged the ministry with the Ministry of Energy in 1993 by adding $55 million to a-

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

HEALTH CARE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. It's about your government's failure to respond to the health care needs in northern Ontario.

The city of Kenora has a crisis in terms of a physician shortage. It is so bad that there are 2,500 citizens in the community who don't have a family doctor. They often have to go to Winnipeg to see a family doctor.

One of those people, and her name is Isabel Ulak of Kenora, besides having to access a family doctor in Winnipeg, then had to go to Winnipeg to seek specialist surgery. When she went to Winnipeg and back after the specialist surgery, she was told that the northern health travel grant wouldn't help her with the travel costs because she wasn't referred by an Ontario doctor. How is she supposed to be referred by an Ontario doctor when people can't get a doctor in Kenora?

Minister, you made the problem, first, by limiting the number of physicians in northern Ontario, and then you made a further problem by not allowing people like this, who have to go outside the province for surgery, to be assisted by the northern health travel grant. What are you going to do to fix these two problems and make sure people receive the justice they deserve?

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I'm pleased to respond to the leader of the third party's question. In fact, if he wants to send the individual case over, we'd be pleased to look into it to help the individual receive the health care the individual needs.

We've made every effort to improve access to health care services across northern Ontario, northwestern Ontario, the Kenora area. In fact, I had a chance to visit earlier this past year to invest some money in the local hospital to help them out, to provide needed equipment to attract more doctors to the area. My ministry is, as well, investing in a Think North CD-ROM initiative, telecommunications initiatives to help doctors link up to help make better decisions and success for the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care in bringing more doctors to northern Ontario.

The new initiative recently announced by the Minister of Health to help provide tuition costs for new doctors to practise in underserviced areas, like the Kenora area, is a step forward. It's a long-standing issue, but this government has done far and away more than Mr Hampton did when he was in power to bring doctors and specialists to northwestern Ontario.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Minister, the question was, what are you going to do to fix the problem? It's not an isolated one. We have the same problem in northeastern Ontario. I have constituents who live in Gogama who regularly have to travel to Sudbury to see a family doctor. The practice in Gogama is full, and they have to regularly travel over 100 kilometres one way to access care, and they can't get any reimbursement from the northern health travel grant as a result.

The Ministry of Health estimates for this year show that your government is planning to spend $2 million less on the northern health travel grant program than you estimated last year. We have more people than ever before without a family doctor in northern Ontario, we have more people than ever before who have to go to southern Ontario to see a specialist, and your government's going to spend $2 million less on this important program. How do you justify that, Minister?

Hon Mr Hudak: In listening to the answers from the Minister of Health and Long-term Care on this issue, I believe she is in the process of reviewing the travel grant. I certainly will bring forward the views that I have heard from northerners to that table as well.

But the member opposite forgets her time in power and her time as Minister of Northern Development and Mines. In fact, there was a loss of 345 doctors in Ontario in the last full year of the NDP government, which had been cut by a third by 1997 by this government. We're reducing that; in fact, we're making progress to bring more doctors to the north, as I described.

She mentions a reduction in spending on travel. Their vision may be to send patients all across Ontario from the north to get service; our vision is to improve access to care in northern Ontario, to bring services closer to home to people so they can get that access within driving distance.

In fact, back to the northwest issue, Fort Frances recently received money for a kidney dialysis-

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

ENERGY RATES

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Minister, the greenhouse industry is a major part of the economy in Essex county, and I'd like to give you some facts.

The fact is that there are more greenhouses in Essex county than in the whole of the United States of America. Essex county greenhouse production is 80% of the Ontario greenhouse production, it creates a $1-billion impact on the economy of Ontario, and now it's in jeopardy because of rising natural gas prices.

As you may be aware, natural gas is used almost exclusively by greenhouses throughout the province and particularly in Essex county. The price of a gigajoule of natural gas has increased from $3.30 to $6.50 over the past year, and it's still rising.

Minister, I'd like to ask you this: are you doing anything to help this industry which contributes so much to the economy of Ontario?

Hon Ernie Hardeman (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I want to assure the member opposite that we too, as government, appreciate the size and the quality of the greenhouse industry in the Essex area. I have in the past year been to the Essex area, I believe three times. In fact, the industry invited me to come down and not only see it from the ground but to fly over the area to see the massive growth that they've had in that industry.

They also pointed out that they had a number of concerns with the growth of that industry, one of those being the price of the fuel it takes to grow their crops and to keep the climate control in the greenhouses. As recently as last week, I spoke with some members of the greenhouse association to talk about the impact that fuel prices are having on the growth of the greenhouse industry.

Some of them were talking to me about looking at some alternatives, other types of fuels that they could use. An interesting one is that one of the producers is looking to change the heating system for the greenhouse industry over to using corn. Of course, other parts of our agricultural industry are having problems getting a reasonable price for that corn. I encourage him, and we will be working with the industry to see if there is some potential for that in order to help us deal with the price of gas as it relates to the greenhouse industry.

Mr Crozier: Minister, we all know that energy prices are hitting the viability of the greenhouse industry, as you've acknowledged, and in fact are hurting the family farm. In addition to low commodity prices, farmers have had to deal with extremely high diesel prices. Now they hear there are going to be skyrocketing natural gas prices, which will cause ammonia and fertilizer costs to dramatically increase.

Farmers are facing a triple threat: first, they'll have to pay more for the fertilizer they use to grow their crops; second, they'll have to pay more for the diesel oil and fuel that they use to plant and tend and harvest their crops; third, they're going to receive historically low prices when they eventually sell their crops. Minister, what are you doing to address this triple threat to the farmers of Ontario?

Hon Mr Hardeman: I want to assure the member that we are very concerned about the cost of agriculture production in the province of Ontario and the amount of revenue they are getting in return for that. A lot of other industries of course have the ability to have their prices set or to increase their prices when the cost of production increases, and that is not the situation with our farmers. That's why it's so important that we have good quality safety net programs designed for Ontario farmers to make sure we can help farmers in these times when the commodity prices go down.

As it relates specifically to fuel prices, I suggest that impacts all industries in the same manner and that, in the competition for the product, all producers have the same problem with the increased fuel prices. But it's very important that we have safety net programs in place to make sure that farmers, with all the adverse conditions and all the adverse prices they have, have those programs in place so they will not be forced out of business-

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

ORGANIZED CRIME

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): My question is for the Solicitor General. As you know, Port Dover is in my riding, and every Friday the 13th Port Dover is a destination for bikers from not only parts of Canada but the United States. A week and a half ago, about 30,000 people arrived in Port Dover to take

part in the traditional activities, an event that was uneventful, by and large; a law-abiding group there that evening.

However, as many of us are aware, there are organized gangs that conduct business centred around criminal activity, drugs and prostitution. Oftentimes this business involves murder. These are issues that come to mind to people in Port Dover on Friday the 13th, when the Harleys arrive.

Minister, what is the scope of the problem with respect to organized crime in Ontario?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Solicitor General): I'd like to thank the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant for his question. Organized crime costs people billions of dollars in Ontario every year. It also threatens the safety and very fabric of our communities.

Our government has taken a number of initiatives and certainly has made many investments in the area of fighting against organized crime. I want to commend my colleague the Attorney General, Jim Flaherty, because last August we brought together crime fighters from around the world, from many of the common law jurisdictions, to share ideas on how we can take the initiative and find new ways of combating organized crime.

But that's not all. Quite frankly, we felt there was a real need to make investments in this area. We have a $2.7-million annual commitment to fight biker gangs. Just last week I met with the chiefs of police of Ontario to discuss other ways we can work with our policing community to combat organized crime. A lot of it deals with the sharing of intelligence, the sharing of information, which we have a commitment to try to coordinate among all levels of police services.

Mr Barrett: Thank you for that explanation, Minister. I believe all the investments and initiatives by our government are helping. I see some evidence of this locally with respect to drug use. Could you tell the House, and certainly my constituents in Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, what measures your ministry, other ministries and the Ontario Provincial Police are taking to deal with biker gangs in our province?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I thank the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant for the supplementary, which gives me an opportunity to speak a little about the provincial special squad. This was formed in 1998 under my predecessor, Bob Runciman. This squad is dedicated to investigating outlaw motorcycle gangs and criminal activity. This is under the direction of the OPP, but it consists of 17 other police organizations and agencies and is based on a national strategy to fight against these outlaw gangs.

Since 1998, the special squad has charged 56 members of biker gangs with 478 various criminal and narcotic offences. In September 1999 the special squad conducted an undercover investigation and seized 1,000 pounds of explosives, the greatest seizure in Canadian history for this type of police project. So there are results. We have a commitment to continue to invest in the fight against organized crime. We also have a commitment to find new ways to fight organized crime to make things better for people in Ontario.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Over the weekend it became quite clear that you had lost what little trust you had left with members of the Ontario building and construction trades. The resolution that was passed by the building trades on Sunday was not only to oppose any move you may come forward with to get rid of

section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, but also they've adopted the position that they're going to oppose and fight any move from you to bring back Bill 69 or any similar legislation that would weaken their role in the construction industry in Ontario. Minister, you betrayed them and you changed the rules on them. At the end of the day, that is why the whole thing fell apart.

Clearly, as I told you last week, we are on the verge of a war in the labour movement, in the construction industry. You are going to declare war on unionized labour, particularly in construction, with your actions. Will you today declare a truce, stand up and tell us you have no plans to bring in any legislation to get rid of

section 1(4) or any legislation similar to Bill 69?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): No.

Mr Agostino: It's that type of arrogance that's going to cause every single construction site in Ontario to come to a standstill, once you bring in your legislation as a favour to your friends who have raised a ton of money for you and who have lobbied you extensively. Now you are going to cater to their wishes.

You obviously are intent on picking a fight. You're obviously intent on starting a fight, and your actions are going to lead to a massive shutdown of every construction site in Ontario. That is not in the best interests of Ontario, and that is not in the best interests of workers. But your actions in failing today to rule out the possibility of

section 1(4) being brought back for removal or any legislation such as Bill 69 are exactly what will cause that.

Again, Minister, you've got a clear opportunity here. You can continue to have your strings pulled from the Premier's office, which obviously wants a fight with the labour movement and wants a fight with the construction industry, or you can take some leadership as minister today and again assure Ontarians and the construction industry that you have no plans to bring in any legislation that's going to cause the type of disruption that 1(4) or 69 would. Will you do that and give me more than a smug, one-word answer?

Hon Mr Stockwell: I wasn't trying to be smug or arrogant. You asked me a question with respect to our having any plans or will we not adopt plans to make changes to the construction act, and my response was, very clear, no, I can't give you that undertaking. Your supplementary question was exactly the same as your first question: "Will you give me an undertaking that you will make no changes to the construction labour relations bill?" I've got to tell you I can't.

We think there is a competitive problem within the construction industry in Ontario today. We believe there is a competitive problem from the non-union and the union sections. We also believe that if we're going to have a competitive and viable construction industry, we need to make legislative reforms that allow both the non-union and the union to competitively bid on work.

As far as I'm concerned, if the question is, "Can you tell us today that you will not come in and change any of that part of the bill?" well, no. It's not smug, it's not arrogant; it's simply, no, I can't give you that undertaking.

ONTARIO WHOLE FARM RELIEF

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Farmers in my riding and across Ontario have been facing a very tough growing season and low commodity prices, resulting in financial hardship for many. I, along with my other Simcoe colleagues, have met with farmers, and they have explained the serious situation they face.

Last week, the member for Chatham-Kent-Essex made some disturbing remarks about the Ontario whole farm relief program. The whole farm relief program is very important to farmers in my riding, and many are counting on it to provide assistance this year. Minister, can you update this House on the successes and the problems associated with the program, and how do you respond to the remarks made by the member for Chatham-Kent-Essex?

Hon Ernie Hardeman (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I want to thank the member for Simcoe North for the opportunity to set the record straight. I want to assure the member that the Ontario whole farm relief program continues to be successful and a needed part of our farm income support package. I am proud that we have been able to get $130 million to over 7,200 Ontario farmers since the program was set up two years ago.

Farmers continue to express support for the program. They support the fact that Ontario was the first jurisdiction in the country to come forward with a disaster program. They support our enhancements to the program and, more recently, they supported the extension to October 30 of the deadline for applying for the program for this crop year.

The Ontario whole farm relief program is the last line of defence for Ontario's farmers. We continue to work to make the program more effective and efficient for our Ontario farmers.

Mr Dunlop: Minister, I know the whole farm relief program is a cost-shared program between Ontario and the federal government, 60%-40%, just like the rest of the safety net programs available to farmers. Earlier this year, I remember that the federal government asked Ontario to hold half of the federal funding for disaster relief. Many farmers do not understand this decision, and now they are calling on the federal government to pay their full share, as agreed to. I heard last Friday that the federal government put out a press release stating that they will now cover 80%, but still less than their full share.

When can Ontario farmers expect the full amount of federal funding for this program?

Hon Mr Hardeman: I thank the member for the question, as he brings up a very important point. As I mentioned, and as the member knows, the whole farm relief program is very important to our farmers. In Ontario we have made a strong commitment to our farmers to pay the full 40% of this program. The federal government chose a different route, only providing 50% at the start. Now they're going to increase that to 80% funding. Our goal is to get this money to the farmers who need it as quickly as possible.

Unfortunately, the federal government often announces these farm programs but takes several months to get their money to us. We haven't yet received the 80% share of this program, and we have no indication of when they will live up to their agreement.

Safety nets are designed to help farmers during tough times, and we need the federal government to come forward with their full share of the whole farm relief program in order to get more money out to our farmers, as agreed in last year's safety net agreement. We are looking forward to receiving the money very soon, so we can get it out to our Ontario farmers.

WOMEN'S CENTRES

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): My question is to the minister responsible for women's issues. I'd like to ask, why are you continuing at this time to cut funding to eight women's centres, when you have more money in the pot to spend on women's programming? In a really cynical attempt to cover up your actions and your cuts to women's centres, you issued a press release today re-announcing your government's funding plans for women's programs, which you originally announced months ago. But you artfully avoid the fact that you've cut funding to eight existing women's centres.

Women's centres in Toronto, Windsor and Ottawa might close because you pulled their stabilized funding. You cancelled the program for stabilized funding for women's centres, and you're now using that money to go to annual project funding for community organizations. The stabilized funding meant that battered women who live in communities could rely on a welcoming place to help them build their self-esteem and to take back power and control into their own hands. They are most often the places and the kinds of services women need first, before they can take advantage of skills development programs that you are funding.

I think you just don't get it, Minister. Women's groups keep telling you that women's centres are best equipped to provide these first-response services. I want to know, why have you ended their program for stable funding and threatened their very existence?

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. I'm pleased to admit that after a couple of weeks they recognize that we have increased funding to women's centres. That was the question two weeks ago: "How can you cut funding to women's centres?" At least this week we're recognizing that the funding has gone from $855,000 to $1.3 million to $1.8 million.

Next week I'm sure they'll recognize that we've put funding into a number of important women's centres so that we can help women find jobs and get away from the cycle of violence that they've been associated with. I'm optimistic that as they continue to research it, the opposition will find that I've done the right thing by putting more money into this program and ensuring that women get the services they need and deserve in our community.

Ms Lankin: Minister, you continue, in a very cynical way, to use language that confuses women's centres with other community organizations. Women have been very critical of what you have done in taking away stable funding from women's centres. No one disagrees with funding skills development programs, but you've taken the money to do that away from women's centres. Not every organization you have funded is a women's centre.

Do you not know the difference, or are you, as I suspect, being very deliberate in using incorrect language? You are so cynical in reannouncing-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Would the member take her seat. Stop the clock.

You can't say that. The member needs to be very careful in saying that, and I would ask her to withdraw that and not say that in the chamber.

Ms Lankin: Speaker, I withdraw what was offensive.

What I am saying to the minister is that when she calls these organizations "women's centres," she belies what is going on in our communities and what these centres have done for so long.

You are funding annual project funding for programs now. You have cancelled stable funding for women's centres. We have asked you to produce the list, publish the list, of those organizations that got the funding. You have again, as of today, refused to do that.

Two things: will you re-establish the funding for the eight women's centres that you have cut, and will you publish the list of those organizations that you are now funding under your annual project funding?

Hon Mrs Johns: Let me be very clear. We have increased the funding; we've doubled the amount that any organization can apply for from $45,000 to $90,000. We are still funding women's centres.

Let me just give you a quote: "We are particularly excited this year. We can provide specialized services in the area of domestic violence specific to women in northern Ontario." That comes from the Sudbury Women's Centre. How can they say I'm not funding women's centres when I have quotes from women's centres that say that it's happening?

When they get their research finally done, they'll find out that we're investing in women's centres and that we've increased the amount of dollars. This funding is going to help women all across the province, and it's making a real difference to women in Ontario. We're not going to tolerate violence; we're not going to tolerate women not getting the jobs they deserve. We're going to do everything in our power to help women in the province of Ontario.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION FUNDING

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, you announced that Ontario would be opening its doors to private universities last April on a Friday afternoon when the students were either in exams or already home for summer session. It wasn't in your campaign Blueprint, and you didn't introduce any legislation before that announcement. You announced that there would be public consultations, and then you changed your mind and had private meetings. Last Thursday, a full six months later, you brought this April decision into the Legislature.

This is not what the people of Ontario voted for. You said in your press conference that you were finding better ways of delivering better quality post-secondary education. In fact, you're finding better ways of avoiding the funding of our excellent quality post-secondary institutions.

This is what Principal Leggat of Queen's University recently stated: "Our excellence is being eroded by forces beyond our control." He feels he has no choice but to ask that you grant him permission to deregulate undergraduate arts and sciences tuition, making it the first university in Canada to do so.

Minister, your very own young Tories have asked you to freeze tuition. Will you stand up today and guarantee that undergraduate arts and sciences tuition in our public universities will not be deregulated under the Harris Tories?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): I would say to everyone in this House that it has been the commitment of successive governments to focus on the public post-secondary education system across this province. That is why our public system in fact has more funding, more than $3 billion in funding, to support the operations of the public post-secondary system. That is why we are looking forward to increased growth in our system: $1 billion and 57 new facilities across the province.

Mrs Bountrogianni: The minister once again didn't answer the question. My question was, will she promise not to deregulate undergraduate arts and science?

But the biggest insult at the press conference last Thursday was when the minister stated that education is a business. Education is not a business, Minister, it's a right. It's the great equalizer in a just society. It's what makes Canada and Canadians unique. Shame on you and your government for attempting to take this away.

What's next? Is your government going to privatize health care, too, because that's a good business? Does your government see this as a good business as well?

Minister, please tell us how these private institutions will not access any public monies when you have already admitted they will access OSAP and when the rules of NAFTA clearly outline how they can access public monies freely and by law once they're in.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I thought I made it quite clear with regard to the leader of the Liberal Party, who asked me the same question last week. I made it very clear that in this province our post-secondary institutions are about students. They're about a province that has the largest number of 18- to 24-year-old students-35%-in the history of this province and across North America.

I will say there is going to be a greater and greater demand for post-secondary education at all kinds of levels, whether we're talking about formal degree programs, informal seminar programs, two-day programs or 10-year programs. I don't think there is any possibility that current institutions can respond to that entire demand even if they wish to. I think the more options that are available, the better. Bernard Shapiro, principal of McGill University, former deputy-

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

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I'll just give the member for Ottawa Centre a moment to wind up his conversation.

I have a question to the Minister of Education. I met with students from schools in my riding of Perth-Middlesex, a rural riding except for the city of Stratford, and they expressed concern about funding to the education system. In fact, I've heard concerns about funding to the education system on more than one occasion. What are we doing to help students who live in rural ridings like mine?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): Supporting schools in rural and northern ridings is an extremely important priority of how we fund school boards to provide education services. We have a number of specific grants which go to rural and northern boards to recognize their unique circumstances. For example, the geographic and school authorities grant has increased by about 7% just in this last year alone, which is much more of an increase than the increase in student enrolment.

As a matter of fact, despite that increase some of those boards have actually had declining enrolments, and yet we have increased that geographic and school authorities grant because we recognize that's an extremely important support for those schools as they try to provide supports for their students. We've more than doubled the money as well in some other categories for rural schools. It's a very important priority.

Mr Johnson: I'd like to thank you, Minister, for your response, and I'm glad to hear the government is committed to ensuring quality education for all students, regardless of where they live. However, there are rural schools in this province, including in my jurisdiction, that are facing declining enrolments. What are you doing to meet the needs of the students in these schools that are declining in enrolment?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, there's no question that the way we fund schools, the foundation grant as it's called, is based upon enrolment, and it is meant to rise and fall with the number of students that a school board has. But what we also recognized is that for rural and northern boards, even though their enrolment may have decreased, they still require resources to provide services in communities. That's why, for one example, the Huron-Perth Catholic District School Board has received an increase of some 38% in their geographic grant from last year to this year to recognize the cost of those services.

We also have increased by some 117% the grant for remote and rural allocation, another important support. We've also asked boards this year to report on what their long-range needs are so we can look and if there are further improvements required, we can do that.

JAIL CLOSURES

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services and it concerns the future of the Pembroke jail. Under your government's plan, the Pembroke jail is slated to close in approximately eight months' time: July 2001 was the announcement made by your officials a few months ago.

You will know-and I know that you do know-that there is a very high level of concern among the staff at the Pembroke jail and among the broader community in the upper Ottawa Valley as to what precise plans your department and the Harris government have to provide adequate and accessible correctional services to the upper Ottawa Valley. So I ask you now: what are your plans and what is your timetable to ensure that there will be adequate and accessible correctional services to the thousands of people who reside in the upper Ottawa Valley?

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister of Correctional Services): The plans actually aren't too different from what we've talked about in the past, and that is, I received a proposal from some local citizens that would have that jail stay there in some reduced format, but some reconfigured format, to deal with the needs of the local community as they relate to individuals who haven't yet been sentenced but are awaiting the conclusion of their trial. I've been encouraging that process to continue, because I would like to try to find a solution that would provide some correctional facilities locally if at all possible.

But clearly the current situation that involves the existing facility is just not something that can be maintained, because it's a facility that was built I believe before this country became a country. In spite of renovations in the past, it is in need of change and modifications we need to find in a correctional facility that will deal with the needs of that community, and I'm prepared to look at that inclusive of the local solution.

Mr Conway: Minister, you will know that there are approximately 35 to 40 full-time and part-time staff who work at the Pembroke jail, and they're watching this exchange today. They understandably want to know what their futures are.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): Why are they watching in prison?

Mr Conway: My friend the Minister of Labour might want to make light of this, but I represent 35 to 40 families who have a very real interest, to say nothing of the Renfrew county bar, the ministerial association and all kinds of people who live in communities like Pembroke and Petawawa and Eganville and Barry's Bay and Deep River who want to know that they are going to have accessible and reliable correctional services in their part of eastern Ontario.

Can you tell the staff at the Pembroke jail what precise expectations they should have about their jobs and their futures, knowing as we both do that they've been told their jail and their jobs are going to be gone by July 2001?

Hon Mr Sampson: In fact, I have met with the representatives of the employees there and have mentioned to them that I am quite open to an option that keeps some operational beds in Pembroke to service the needs of the community, but the current operation of the facility is just not on the table-as it shouldn't be, because it's a facility that has outlived its time.

The current plan is, of course, to move those particular beds to a far more efficient and secure facility in Ottawa. Local individuals, inclusive of the employees, have said, "Is there not another option that you're prepared to consider, Minister?" I said, "Of course," and we've been working diligently to try to find that situation. It has taken longer than I would have liked, I will say to the member across the floor, but if in the end it means that we have a correctional facility in Pembroke that keeps some employees in the business of providing service to us, I'm prepared to spend the time and the effort to get there, if we can.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. As you know, the mining industry is a significant contributor to Ontario's wealth. The strength of the mining industry is particularly important, needless to say, to the economy and the viability of the north, where so many communities have been built on the prosperity of this industry.

As we all witnessed, and continue to witness with the Bre-X story, decisions based on incomplete and inaccurate mining data can harm the individual investor and bring the integrity of the Canadian market into question. Will you please explain to the Legislature what actions your ministry is taking to protect the many good people in Ontario and across the world who invest in the mining sector and to help prevent scandal of this kind being repeated.

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I thank the member for Peterborough for the insightful question. The member is right. The Bre-X scandal definitely impacted on international mining and capital markets, and because Ontario plays such an important role in those markets, with about 40% of the capital, we have been impacted significantly by that.

We want to make changes in this province to ensure that Ontario continues to be the most attractive jurisdiction in the world in which to invest for mineral capital, and that's why we introduced legislation this past June to establish a self-regulating body for geoscientists to ensure the information that is coming forward is accurate, is reliable and is reviewed by professionals.

I'm pleased to say, as well, I think that the importance of this legislation to the province was recognized, in that we had all-party support to move it through for third reading. The moving ahead, responding to the Ontario Securities Commission and the Toronto Stock Exchange task force, means we are on the right track to help restore confidence to this industry.

Mr Stewart: I'm glad to see that the ministry has taken positive steps to protect the public from fraudulent claims, through creating an accountability that geoscientists themselves want, but that alone will not stimulate the mineral industry in today's global market. Minister, what have you done to ensure that the Ontario mining industry can compete both here in Canada and internationally?

Hon Mr Hudak: As I mentioned, about 40% of the world's mineral capital is raised right here in the province of Ontario, in Toronto. It's a significant figure, but it's true. That's one thing, the legislation for geoscientists, but we wanted to make sure that we, as well, backed it up with real actions on the taxation front and on the regulatory front.

That's why we have brought in programs like Operation Treasure Hunt, a record investment in geophysical and geochemical survey; we're cutting the Ontario mining tax rate in half to make it the lowest tax in all of Canada. Similarly, for new remote mines open ing up in the province, we're creating a 10-year tax holiday and then a further reduction in the tax rate after that to spur economic investment in that area. As well, we've brought in an Ontario-focused flow-through share program, to spur investment in grassroots prospecting and development, a move that has spurred the federal government to finally act on that initiative. We're moving forward, and that's the bottom line.

NATIVE FORESTRY ISSUES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Two weeks ago the Minister of Natural Resources announced a policy of allowing 10,000-hectare clear-cuts in the far northern forest, and he tried to justify it by saying it would be good for caribou habitat. A 10,000-hectare clear-cut is the same as 20,000 football fields or one football field 1,250 miles long.

Minister, since in your own words this is clearly intended for the far northern forests, could you tell us what consultations you've had with the First Nations people who live there and would clearly be affected by this disastrous proposal?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I thank the leader of the third party for the question. This is something that's important. That's why changes in policy go on the Environmental Bill of Rights, as he knows. We get responses from the public, and we have provided for a time to do that. We are seeking public response to this question and other questions affecting forestry in the province.

Let me remind the leader of the third party that this comes out of and our policies on forestry come from the broadest public consultation on public land use in the history of this province. Under the previous minister we began a process where we sat on three round tables and talked to people who were interested in this subject right across the province, including First Nations people, who were invited to those processes. From that, we are developing a forestry-

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

Mr Hampton: Minister, the fact of the matter is that you didn't consult with First Nations then and you're not consulting with them now. At the same time that you're proposing 10,000-hectare clear-cuts, your colleague the federal Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is proposing all-weather roads all over the north to get the wood out, and neither of you has discussed any of this with First Nations.

The First Nations people are not going to allow you to come in and cut what would be the equivalent of the city of Etobicoke in one fell swoop and then take the wood out. When are you going to begin real and serious discussions with the First Nations before you promote all-weather roads, 10,000-hectare clear-cuts and mines all over their territory? When are you going to consult the people who are going to be affected?

Hon Mr Snobelen: As always, the leader of the third party is entertaining, if not informative. In fact, he has attempted to confuse many different issues.

I can tell him quite proudly that we intend, on our forest regulations, to consult widely with the people of Ontario, including First Nations communities. We have had a track record of doing just that. In fact, we have spent more time and more effort talking to the people of Ontario about what to do with public lands than any previous government. That's why we've been able to add 378 new parks and protected areas and protect over six million acres of land in this area of the undertaking. We're proud of that record.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to standing orders 53 and 55.

With respect to the point of order, standing order 53 deals with notices to this Legislature about items to be considered. Standing order 53 reads, "All notices required by the standing orders of the House or otherwise shall be laid on the table before 5 pm and printed on the Orders and Notices paper for the following day." Standing order 55 states, "Before the adjournment of the House on each Thursday during the session, the government House leader shall announce the business for the following week."

You'll note that in today's orders there is no reference to what will be debated or discussed tonight. I draw this to your attention particularly in reference to the Camp commission of the 1970s, which basically set up these rules. They were adopted by the Legislature to ensure that the opposition would have a meaningful opportunity to prepare for debate and to know what items would be coming forward. It has been the custom of this House since approximately the mid-1970s that this would be the case.

What is happening more and more often, and I spoke with the table earlier today about this, is that they must go on the assumption that a motion will be passed before they can publish anything. Hence, on Monday, in the event that we're sitting at night, they don't have the opportunity to publish.

I would ask you, sir, to review this, because the broader context, it seems to me, has to do with the ability of the Legislature to adequately prepare for debate on issues that are coming forward.

The Camp commission in the 1970s was particularly concerned about the independence of the Legislature from the executive council. Among other things that came about as a result of that were the Speaker taking responsibility for the legislative chamber. Those rules were put into place, sir, to enable us to have a full and fair debate of the issues. Increasingly, we are not being told on Thursday what we will be debating on any given day, and now, with this particular situation, we're left in a scenario whereby the government is not even compelled, as per standing orders 53 and 55, to publish at an appropriate time-certainly not to have it at the table before 5 o'clock the previous day.

I would ask you to review those standing orders and the circumstances which have come about as a result of that situation.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the member. The government House leader.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): The reason I think the order paper today could not have the business of this evening, even though I indicated to the House leaders last Thursday what that business would be, so it's not a secret to anybody who's in this Legislature what the business will be-the problem is that the Legislature can't put it on for this evening's sittings until that motion is moved today.

I don't know whether we can get around that with some way of at least revamping the standing orders.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): Move the motions on Thursday.

Hon Mr Sterling: Perhaps that's the case. If we need a revision to the standing orders in order to do what I would deem a technical matter, then we'll look at it in good faith and do that.

I also would point out that

section 54 of the standing orders says that, "Except as otherwise provided in these standing orders, government business will be taken up in the discretion of the government House leader."

Section 55 has always been viewed by the House as a matter as to whether the government House leader or another member of the government-often the government whip-puts forward the business for the next week. That has been done as often as possible, but it isn't always done and it hasn't always been done.

So, Mr Speaker, we're quite willing to work to revamp the orders in order to allow this to stand on the order paper. Basically, the opposition members do know what's going to be debated tonight. We're quite willing to work co-operatively if an amendment would make this clear, as long as the same discretion is left to the government House leader in terms of dealing with business.

Mr Christopherson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I say to the government House leader that it's fine for a few of us in here, perhaps, to know informally on a Thursday what may happen, but that doesn't do the public any good, because nothing's published. They, as much as anyone here, have a right to know what's going on.

I might suggest respectfully, Speaker-and I know you can't order it, but I would suggest it and put it on the record-that if we move the motions for evening sittings on the Thursday rather than on the Monday, that would accomplish all that we're looking at, and the government House leader still reserves the traditional right to call the business that the government would like to.

I would ask, Speaker, if perhaps you could talk with the government House leader and look at that suggestion to ensure that we do know what is going to happen here and, just as importantly, that the public also know.

The Speaker: I thank all of the House leaders, and I will investigate and try to come up with some type of solution.

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is a petition to the Ontario Legislature, and it deals with northerners demanding that the Harris government eliminate health care apartheid in this province.

"Whereas the northern health travel grant offers a reimbursement of partial travel costs at a rate of 30.4 cents per kilometre one way for northerners forced to travel for cancer care while travel policy for southerners who travel for cancer care features full reimbursement costs for travel, meals and accommodation;

"Whereas a cancer tumour knows no health travel policy or geographic location;

"Whereas a recently released Oracle research poll confirms that 92% of Ontarians support equal health travel funding;

"Whereas northern Ontario residents pay the same amount of taxes and are entitled to the same access to health care and all government services and inherent civil rights as residents living elsewhere in the province; and

"Whereas we support the efforts of the newly formed OSECC (Ontarians Seeking Equal Cancer Care), founded by Gerry Lougheed Jr, former chair of Cancer Care Ontario, Northeast Region, to correct this injustice against northerners travelling for cancer treatment;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand the Mike Harris government move immediately to fund full travel expenses for northern Ontario cancer patients and eliminate the health care apartheid which exists presently in the province of Ontario."

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

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has introduced Bill 112,

An Act to amend the McMichael Canadian Art Collection Act;

"Whereas the McMichael Canadian Art Collection has grown and evolved into one of Canada's best-loved and most important art gallery collections of Canadian art;

"Whereas the passage of Bill 112 would constitute a breach of trust made with hundreds of other donors to the McMichael Canadian Art Collection, vest too much power in the hands of the founders, who have been more than compensated for their generosity, diminish the authority and responsibility of the board of trustees, limit the focus of the art collection and hamper the gallery to raise private funds, thereby increasing its dependency on the taxpayers and significantly reduce its capacity and strength as an educational resource;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to withdraw Bill 112."

I support this petition.

ENVIRONMENTAL BILL OF RIGHTS

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I have an important petition presented to me by Dr Tom Puk from Lakehead University related to the Ministry of Education exemption from the Environmental Bill of Rights.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights was intended to give the citizens of Ontario a way of getting involved in environmental decision-making; and

"Whereas the Environmental Bill of Rights requires Ontario government ministries to develop a statement of values to `guide the minister and the ministry staff when making decisions that affect the environment'; and

"Whereas the Ontario Ministry of Education has been exempted from the requirements of the Environmental Bill of Rights despite the importance of environmental education; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Education has eliminated environmental science as a stand-alone set of courses that focuses entirely on the science of the environment from the secondary school curriculum; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Education is responsible for developing educational policies that directly affect the ecological literacy of future citizens and is, thus, partly responsible for the health of our environment; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario are being denied their right to shape the decisions being made about environmental education by the Ministry of Education's exclusion from the Environmental Bill of Rights;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to prescribe the Ministry of Education to the Environmental Bill of Rights without further delay."

It's a very important issue, and I'm very pleased to add my name to this petition.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have another petition regarding the Harris government's ongoing discrimination against northern cancer patients. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the northern health travel grant offers a reimbursement of partial travel costs at a rate of 30.4 cents per kilometre one way for northerners forced to travel for cancer care while travel policy for southerners who travel for cancer care features full reimbursement costs for travel, meals and accommodation;

"Whereas a cancer tumour knows no health travel policy or geographic location;

"Whereas northern Ontario residents pay the same amount of taxes and are entitled to the same access to health care and all government services and inherent civil rights as residents living elsewhere in the province; and

"Whereas we support the efforts of the newly formed OSECC (Ontarians Seeking Equal Cancer Care), founded by Gerry Lougheed Jr, former chair of Cancer Care Ontario, Northeast Region, to correct this injustice against northerners travelling for cancer treatment;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand the Mike Harris government move immediately to fund full travel expenses for northern Ontario cancer patients and eliminate the health care apartheid which exists presently in the province of Ontario."

I agree with the petitioners and have affixed my signature to this. I'd like to thank Gerry Lougheed Jr for all of his efforts.

PENSION FUNDS

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

"Whereas the Ministry of Health announced a new model on January 25, 1996, for improving and coordinating long-term care services. The amalgamation of the home care and placement coordination services function did shift to community care access centres (CCACs). The governing bodies of various pension plans, namely the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement Savings (OMERS), Victorian Order of Nurses (VON), Family Services Association (FSA) and Hospital of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP) have failed to successfully negotiate agreements for a transfer of pension assets.

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

"That the pension adjustments are a transition item which the ministry has not yet addressed. We are requesting a one-time adjustment to enable the transfer of pension assets. This transfer is required to ensure that employees transferred from predecessor employers (namely health units and the Victorian Order of Nurses) to community care access centres as part of the mandatory government reform initiative for `single access to long-term-care services' receive pension benefits equal to those which they formerly enjoyed. Provincially over 3,000 health care workers are affected.

The individuals who transferred to the CCACs had no control over what would happen to their prior pension contributions. Unless a one-time adjustment is made to enable the transfer of reserves, the typical employee will lose about $2,000 annually in pension benefits compared to the position they would have been in had they been allowed to remain in OMERS."

It's signed by a number of residents of Chatham, Merlin and Wallaceburg, and I affix my signature to it.

FRAIS DE TRANSPORT AUX FINS MÉDICALES

M. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-Baie James) : J'ai ici une pétition des gens de la région de Hearst et Mattice à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

« Les gens du nord exigent que le gouvernement Harris mette fin à l'apartheid en matière de soins de santé.

« Attendu que, d'une part, le programme de subventions accordées aux résidents du nord de l'Ontario pour frais de transport à des fins médicales offre un remboursement partiel au taux de 30,4 cents par kilomètre » à sens unique « à l'intention des personnes atteintes de cancer, et que, d'autre part, la politique de déplacement pour les gens du sud de l'Ontario rembourse en entier les coûts de transport, de repas, et d'hébergement ;

« En conséquence, il est résolu que les soussignés exigent que le gouvernement Mike Harris propose immédiatement de financer en entier les frais de transport » pour les gens du nord de l'Ontario atteints de cancer, afin de mettre fin à cette situation non équilibrée.

WATER EXTRACTION

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): "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."

I very happily sign this petition.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): A petition to the Ontario Legislature:

"Whereas the northern health travel grant offers a reimbursement of partial travel costs at a rate of 30.4 cents per kilometre one way for northerners forced to travel for cancer care while travel policy for southerners who travel for cancer care features full reimbursement costs for travel, meals and accommodation;

"Whereas a cancer tumour knows no health travel policy or geographic location;

"Whereas a recently released Oracle research poll confirms that 92% of Ontarians support equal health travel funding;

"Whereas northern Ontario residents pay the same amount of taxes and are entitled to the same access to health care and all government services and inherent civil rights as residents living elsewhere in the province; and

"Whereas we support the efforts of the newly formed OSECC (Ontarians Seeking Equal Cancer Care), founded by Gerry Lougheed Jr, former chair of Cancer Care Ontario, Northeast Region, to correct this injustice against northerners travelling for cancer treatment;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand the Mike Harris government move immediately to fund full travel expenses for northern Ontario cancer patients and eliminate the health care apartheid which exists presently in the province of Ontario."

I will affix my signature to this.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I add my signature to those of my constituents who are concerned about this issue.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): As you can see, the northern health travel grant continues to be a great concern to all northerners. I have some more petitions that have come in as well.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

As always, I'm very pleased to add my name to this petition.

FARMFARE

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly that reads as follows:

"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; and

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

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

"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 thank Stan Raper of the United Farm Workers for forwarding this to me, and I proudly add my name to those of these petitioners.

HUNTING IN WILDERNESS PARKS

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): Another important issue is the question of hunting in wilderness parks, and I have more petitions coming in.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Minister of Natural Resources has confirmed that the province is considering allowing hunting in Ontario's wilderness parks, including Quetico, Killarney, Wabakimi and Woodland Caribou;

"Whereas the provincial government made no mention of opening up wilderness parks to hunting when it came up with the Ontario Living Legacy policy last year for a vast area of publicly owned land across northern Ontario;

"Whereas the province's wilderness parks were originally established to be sanctuaries where the forces of nature would be permitted to function freely and where visitors could travel by non-mechanized means and experience solitude, challenge and personal enjoyment of that protected area; and

"Whereas opening wilderness parks to hunters undermines the principles the parks were established to fulfil, threatens animals and exposes the public to risk;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that the Ministry of Natural Resources renew and reconfirm its ban on hunting in all of Ontario's wilderness parks."

I hope the Minister of Natural Resources does, indeed, do that soon, and I'm very happy to add my name to this petition.

OPPOSITION DAY

WATER QUALITY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I move that this House recognizes this government has abandoned responsibility for protecting our water by: ignoring repeated warnings about water safety from the Provincial Auditor and Environmental Commissioner; drastically slashing funding and firing staff from the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Natural Resources who play a key role in protecting our water; and

That this House demands that the government take action on this serious problem by:

Finally keeping their long-standing promise to deliver a comprehensive groundwater protection strategy;

Beginning to restore the 45% cut to the budget of the Ministry of the Environment;

Beginning to rehire the one third of Ministry of the Environment staff that the government has laid off; and

Immediately passing a comprehensive clean drinking water act.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): I understand the time is split evenly between the three parties. If he would like to lead off debate, the Chair recognizes the member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: Obviously, if you were to ask virtually anybody in this province which of the issues confronting this Legislature are of great importance, one they would certainly mention is the issue of the environment. There's a recognition out there, I think, that this government has not placed the environment as one of its high priorities. It's busy, as it would say, cutting taxes and dealing with a variety of other issues while at the same time it has been cutting resources to the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Natural Resources and of course to other agencies that are extremely important, conservation authorities in our province.

In fact, today we had a report released from the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy. It's called Ontario's Environment and the Common Sense Revolution: A Fifth Year Report. Many of the issues contained in the resolution that I have before the House this afternoon are in fact dealt with in this report. It is a report that no government member would look upon with pride, because while it has some compliments, from time to time, in it, by and large it is a report which is extremely critical of the government in the areas I have mentioned.

We mentioned, for instance, that we've had independent people talk about the record of the government and independent people offer some rather biting criticism. I guess one expects that those in the opposition are, from time to time, going to be critical of government policy or government legislation or regulations, or lack thereof.

But what we have are two independent officers of this House: one is the Provincial Auditor, who looks at all of the expenditures of the government and determines whether there is value for the money that is being expended and whether there are any problems with those expenditures; second, we have the Environmental Commissioner, who assesses the state of the environment, the government's record, the government's action or inaction on environmental issues.

Both of these individuals have been critical of this government on more than one occasion for lack of adequate policy to protect our groundwater. The report by the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy talked this morning about 10 specific areas where it was critical of the government for not taking appropriate action. The first that it mentioned, for instance, was the drastic cutbacks that have taken place to the Ministry of the Environment and to the Ministry of Natural Resources. Both of those ministries have within their mandates responsibility for protecting our drinking water.

In some cases it's the raw surface water, the raw groundwater. Of course, in the case of the Ministry of the Environment, they supervise the finished product; that is, the actual drinking water which comes out of the taps or out of wells in the province.

When you have drastic cuts to these ministries, it means they are unable to do the job they used to do. If you go around the province you will find, for instance, that some area offices have been closed, some district offices have been merged and the regional offices have fewer people than they used to have to protect the environment.

If I can be parochial for a moment, Springbank Creek in St Catharines has been impacted by pollution. Residents in the area of Springbank Creek are concerned that contamination has been spotted and, in their view, insufficient action has been taken to address this problem. You have to remember that Ministry of the Environment offices around this province have far fewer people, and the people who are there have been told to be business friendly.

Both of those factors militate in favour of inaction in dealing with important environmental issues, and that is why the Provincial Auditor and the Environmental Commissioner have both been critical of the government over drinking water issues and over the lack of a groundwater policy.

If you talk about a strategy for groundwater, it sounds like it's rather theoretical. But it's extremely important, particularly in rural areas but also in some urban areas, because that is the source of our drinking water.

We obtained, through the freedom of information act-which means Liberal research had to pay for it, and it took a period of time to get it-a document which was supposed to be the groundwater policy of this government. There are several categories or headings. Under the heading "Action Plan," there is a blank. In other words, there is no strategy to deal with groundwater problems in the province. This is extremely sad, because what we've had is the situation in Walkerton, where six people died from drinking the water, which was contaminated, and several hundred people were seriously ill as a result of consuming that water.

There is an ongoing investigation at this time and, of course, a public inquiry which Dalton McGuinty, the leader of the official opposition and leader of the Liberal Party called for and pressured the government to come forward with. Of course, we have that inquiry. My colleague who sits beside me, Gerry Phillips, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, is looking for a similar inquiry into the situation at Ipperwash. So far, we've had the government resist that and hide behind legalities.

When we look at the cuts, various figures are given out. I'm going to be conservative in my estimate-small-c conservative in this case-and say that one third of the staff of the Ministry of the Environment is no longer with the ministry. Forty-five percent of the budget has been cut. Some people say that if you count both the capital budget-that's things they build-and the operating budget of the ministry, you would have as much as a 60% cut in the Ministry of the Environment.

The conservation authorities used to do a great job dealing with groundwater and with the impact of farm runoff and other runoff going into our waterways. They're down to bare-bones budgets now. They've been forced to sell some of their land as a result of lack of funds available to them. They want to do that job. They need a significant investment of public money in that area.

Because significant tax cuts have already taken place, most people in this province today are saying, "Please don't send me that $200 with the letter from the Premier saying what a great guy he is and so on. Don't bother with that. Put that money into protecting my drinking water." Yes, if you send it to them they're going to cash the cheque and they're going to use it. But most people in this province want to see it used for health care and the protection of our environment, and those two are related.

We have to recognize what the Environmental Commissioner had to say. This is an individual appointed by the majority of government members on the committee. As you'll recall, Gordon Miller was the Conservative candidate for Mike Harris in 1995 in the Timmins area, near North Bay. He's been a candidate for this party twice. He's also been president of the federal Progressive Conservative association in the Premier's own riding of Nipissing.

Even this individual has had the following to say about water taking-we seem to have all kinds of water being taken from this province, huge water-taking permits given. Here's what the Environmental Commissioner had to say. I want them to listen carefully; I know the former Minister of the Environment will be particularly interested in this. He said: "The ministry continues to approve permits for potentially massive takings of groundwater without adequate technical analysis. At best, this may result in an inappropriate private allocation of a public resource. At worst, it may threaten the sustainability of the water supply of hundreds of people drawing on the same aquifer."

He went on say: "In addition, on at least two occasions, the Ministry of the Environment has appeared to deliberately mislead the public by announcing management measures that were not carried out. Such actions are entirely contrary to the ministry's Statement of Environmental Values and to the purposes of the Environmental Bill of Rights."

I am not saying this. This is not Jim Bradley, opposition person, saying this. This is not one of us in the opposition. I am quoting what the Environmental Commissioner had to say about water-taking permits. It's quite obvious there has never been a moratorium and that what the commissioner says is correct: there has been incorrect information provided to the people of Ontario about that.

I think the resolution we have before us today, if adopted, would be a beginning of restoring the Ministry of the Environment, restoring the Ministry of Natural Resources and starting to make some inroads into protecting the water supply of Ontario.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I am happy to speak on this resolution before us today, and say that I and the NDP caucus will support this resolution.

The question of a Safe Drinking Water Act in this resolution before us today is interesting. As members know, a few weeks ago I brought forward what I would call a comprehensive framework of a Safe Drinking Water Act that covered a lot of the issues we've been talking about in this Legislature since the tragedy in Walkerton. This Safe Drinking Water Act wasn't just dreamed up overnight to deal with this problem. It wasn't smoke and mirrors. It was a real, comprehensive framework which we hoped would be passed in this House and would go to committee.

Everybody who is following this story knows what happened the day we debated this bill. Tory members stood up in support. I was told that Tory members were going to support the bill, and I was very happy about that-surprised, but happy. I didn't realize that underneath there was a cynical political ploy being planned to kill the bill. Mr Speaker, I think you were in the House when this happened.

After the debate, there was all-party support. I believe there was only one person in the Legislature who actually voted against the Safe Drinking Water Act. I'm not quite sure why he did it, except I heard him talking to a member of the press later, and he said, "It's more red tape, and besides, I don't like the NDP." That was the member for-I forget which Etobicoke he's from. Will you look that up for me?

Mr Bradley: Etobicoke North.

Ms Churley: Etobicoke North. I won't mention him by name. In a way, I congratulate him because he was true to his convictions. He stood up and voted against the bill and he had his reasons why. But everybody else in the benches over there stood up and piously voted for the bill.

Let me explain what traditionally happens here when a private member's bill passes. There is a thing called committee of the whole. Those of us who are here understand that when anything goes to committee of the whole, it is dead. It goes into a black hole and disappears forever. We all know that. So what happened was-

Interjections.

Ms Churley: Oh, they're getting angry over there, because I'm about to expose them once again. What happened was, they voted for the bill. For the viewers out there, the way this archaic process works is, I stood up and said, "I don't want it to go to committee of the whole. I request that it go to an actual committee with public hearings," and I picked general government. Lo and behold, to my surprise, the Tory members forced a vote on it. They stood up and voted-

Interjection: Forced a vote?

Ms Churley: Yes, forced a vote. If you know how the House works, Tory members stood up. Enough people stood and forced a vote and voted down the Safe Drinking Water Act going to committee. So on paper it looks like these guys supported the Safe Drinking Water Act, but then they voted against it going to public hearings. Let me say, this is a new trick being played in this House. I've seen them do it to a couple of other bills now as well, and it's a cheap political ploy to get away with-

Interjection.

Ms Churley: You know all about cheap political ploys over there, don't you, because it's done repeatedly in this House. So the bill got killed.

The Minister of the Environment likes to stand up and say we don't need a Safe Drinking Water Act. In fact, when I first asked him if he was going to support it, in his first answer, he referred to it, part of it anyway, as "more red tape." That's in the record, Minister.

Interjection.

Ms Churley: Don't make fun of me. Let's just get this clear: what happened here-

The Deputy Speaker: I would like to just remind speakers that when they are in debate they should direct their attention to me, direct their comments through me. If we don't have the finger pointing, if we don't have the comments directed at people, I think we will all have a better afternoon.

The Chair recognizes the member for Toronto-Danforth.

Ms Churley: What they did, Mr Speaker, is destroy any possibility for the Safe Drinking Water Act to go out there. I want to tell people that this is a bill that I had been working on for some time before the tragedy in Walkerton happened. Some of it was original, made in Ontario, I suppose, by me and my staff and others we were working with, experts in the field, as well as being based on some existing laws in the US. I don't know if the minister and the others are aware, but just a little while ago, around the time we were debating second reading of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the US was celebrating 25 years of a safe drinking water act there. The reason such

an act was brought into being 25 years ago is that they were having problems similar to the problems we're having in Ontario right now with safe drinking water and the lack of comprehensive laws in place to deal with it.

So here we are at a point, particularly after what happened in Walkerton, where we have an opportunity in a non-partisan way, which is what I thought was happening that day when the bill was brought for second reading, to bring this bill forward to public hearings and have a good discussion. It could have been changed, amendments could have been made, and at the end of the day we would have had a very strong Safe Drinking Water Act in this province. The Tories decided not to go ahead with that.

I'm sure the minister, when he stands up, will talk about his regulations. I want to say clearly again that it's no good to keep repeating over and over again that we don't need a safe drinking water act because these new regulations have been put into place. The experts out there in the field and those environmental groups and others who have been calling for a safe drinking water act made it very clear, I say to the minister, that your regulations don't go far enough and that it's not what's needed now, that it needs to be enshrined in law and that the regulations have all kinds of problems and gaps in them.

No longer are we comfortable with the hodgepodge of regulations and guidelines and policies that have been in place for a number of years.

Certainly I was aware of that when I was in government. We had started to move in the direction of bringing in a safe drinking water act. We didn't do it, but the NDP did introduce a comprehensive safe drinking water bill which got scuttled by the Tories.

One of the reasons why now, more than ever, we need a safe drinking water act is because, as I outlined in a question today based on this latest report that came from the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy-we know that about a third of the staff has been cut and everybody's been saying, "Well, there was a 30% cut from the Ministry of the Environment since they came into office in 1995." If you look at this report-and the numbers are all there. They don't lie. They are fact, and they come from the government's own table. The cuts now add up to 60%. That's six zero. It's unbelievable.

When I first saw it, I thought, no, there must be a mistake in this report, but then I looked at the figures and got my calculator out and, sure enough, we're talking about a 60% cut since these guys came to power.

They stand up and say, "You guys wasted money. You had all these staff in the minister's office and all these staff doing things." These staff were protecting the environment.

That's why it became very clear to me, more than ever, that we needed a safe drinking water act and we needed it enshrined in law so that the government would be forced to make sure that the laws were being upheld and our drinking water actually was kept safe for the people of Ontario, that enough staff were in place to inspect and enough money and resources were in place so that the government could ensure, particularly for the smaller municipalities that need the financial support and other resources, that drinking water is kept safe.

So it's all the more important to enshrine it in law, because if it's not in law, there's really no way to enforce it. Regulations can be changed by a stroke of the pen.

As I had mentioned earlier, many of these experts and environmental groups gave about a page-long list of reasons why these regulations weren't good enough. Dr Murray McQuigge, the medical officer of health who blew the whistle on the problems with the water in Walkerton, the first one, also went public and said that the regulations which the Minister of the Environment will proudly speak of again today are not adequate.

You would think that after what happened in Walkerton one of the biggest priorities of this government would be not to play games, not more PR, which is what we've seen repeatedly. This government's response to what happened in Walkerton is to come up with more smoke and mirrors to make it appear to the public that something is actually being done. We saw that in terms of the increased-penalties bill that we're debating throughout the days ahead of us in this House, although I've heard that they might be bringing in closure on that tomorrow.

I'm sincerely hoping that doesn't happen, because a number of our members have important things to say about that particular bill. But in this bill as well, you'll note in the accompanying document that there are more changes to the Ontario Water Resources Act, I believe it is, that are, again, if you look at it, just smoke and mirrors. It doesn't address the kinds of issues that need to be addressed if we want to protect drinking water in Ontario.

I found this cut of 60% from the ministry in such a short period of time-for instance, in 1994-95, when the NDP left office, the annual budget for the environment was $559 million. I can assure you-I was there at the time-I didn't think that was enough, given the aging infrastructure that we have. It's the industrial heart of Canada. With all of the industry and all of the pollution and all of the problems that were looming, we needed more resources.

During the time of a very deep recession in this province, an NDP government continued to invest in the environment and make sure the resources and staff were there to at least do an adequate job. So as I said, and this again is all documented, in 1994-95 there was $559 million. For the year 2000, after five years under this government's guiding hand, what they call leadership, the annual budget will be $223 million.

This damning report that is before us today-and I advise the minister to not dismiss it as he did in question period today and as the ministers before him have