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

June 19, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Jun-19 vol. A (PDF)

L074A - Mon 19 Jun 2000 / Lun 19 jun 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LANDSLIDE

SCARBOROUGH EAST 2000 FESTIVAL

CHILD PSYCHIATRISTS

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

GUELPH AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE

SENIOR CITIZENS' MONTH

CANCER TREATMENT

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

REPORTS, OFFICE OF THE INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

REPORT, SPEAKER'S COMMISSION ON MEMBERS' COMPENSATION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GENOCIDE MEMORIAL WEEK ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA SEMAINE COMMÉMORATIVE DES GÉNOCIDES

VISITORS

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

JACK STOKES

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

WATER QUALITY

CANCER TREATMENT

TRANSPORTATION OF STUDENTS

WATER QUALITY

COMMUNITY SAFETY

COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES

CANCER TREATMENT

VICTIMS OF CRIME

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

VISITORS

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

DURHAM COLLEGE

WATER EXTRACTION

FARMLAND

PESTICIDES

DURHAM COLLEGE

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

DURHAM COLLEGE

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

KARLA HOMOLKA

DELAYED START OF SCHOOL

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ELECTRONIC COMMERCE ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LE COMMERCE ÉLECTRONIQUE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LANDSLIDE

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Today I rise before the Legislature to bring to the attention of the Minister of Natural Resources that due to heavy rainfall we have houses that have the potential of falling into the Castor River.

On June 1, I personally handed a copy of a letter from the South Nation Conservation Authority to the minister describing the Embrun situation in detail. Even though I have followed up on several occasions, the minister has not yet responded.

There is an elderly couple, Mr and Mrs Armand Bruyere, whose property is sliding, a portion of the municipality's property is going, and a

section of the riverbank has disappeared into the river. The Bruyeres have even been asked to vacate their premises until adequate slope stability can be achieved.

The South Nation Conversation Authority is saying that due to the Mike Harris cuts, capital funding for exceptional situations such as this landslide is not available.

From June 1 to today, not a word has been received from the minister. I wonder if the Minister of Natural Resources understands the stress that this 78-year-old couple is going through at the present time. I hope the minister will soon give a favourable decision to the South Nation Conservation Authority request.

SCARBOROUGH EAST 2000 FESTIVAL

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Mr Speaker, as you know, my riding of Scarborough East is the most beautiful riding in the province. What with the Rouge Valley, which was recently doubled in size thanks to our government, a waterfront that has seen major improvements during the past four years, the historic Guild Inn, the many excellent schools, a world-class university campus, and a hospital that recently received an additional $10 million to expand services, it's no wonder that Scarborough East is the envy of most if not all, of the members of this Legislature.

Last week the clouds and rain gave way and Scarborough East celebrated the millennium with the Scarborough East 2000 Festival. This exciting family event included a giant parade, fireworks, and entertainment for children and adults alike. Musical tributes to Shania Twain, Britney Spears, the Back Streets Boys and the Spice Girls filled the air, along with a midway and a crafters market. The dancing and fun went long into the night.

The Scarborough East 2000 Festival was designed to foster community pride and spirit, to celebrate our achievements as a community, and our diverse cultural heritages. I would like to thank the members of the Festival 2000 Organizing Committee, particularly Mr Dave Adamson, Mr Doug Puddester and Mr Anthony Da Silva, as well as hundreds of other volunteers who helped make this wonderful event a memorable and enriching experience. I would also like to recognize the many businesses that contributed both time and money to turn a great idea into a successful reality.

It was a job well done and the thousands of people who participated in this event were able to add one more reason to believe that the riding of Scarborough East is the best place in Ontario to live, work and raise a family.

CHILD PSYCHIATRISTS

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I rise today to address the shortage of professionally trained child psychiatrists in our hospitals in Ottawa. This is an issue of great concern to my community and one that I know is being felt throughout the province.

As many of you know, approximately 15% to 25% of children and youth in our society have at least one mental disorder. As well, many of you will know that proper early diagnosis and treatment will greatly enhance the child's condition and help them to move on to a healthy, happy and productive life. But when these disorders are left untreated or ignored, as they are in about 80% of the cases of childhood clinical depression, then we have a problem, and the problems can linger for a lifetime, with many unnecessary recurrences.

I regret to inform the House that there is a shortage of trained psychiatrists for children in the Ottawa area as well. The confusion created by the ongoing hospital restructuring means that our kids who are suffering are being forced to wait a painfully long time just to get an assessment.

I am worried about this shortage, not just because of the pain it causes right now but because our city is becoming the fastest-growing city in the country and these numbers are going to become worse as the population explodes. As well, the House should be aware that the Ministry of Health is currently negotiating to cut the number of beds for children and adolescent mental health in the Ottawa area. Morale is already very low among the psychiatrists who are left in the system. Many have left to set up private practice.

I want to take this opportunity to call upon the Minister of Health and the ministry to work with the people in Ottawa to find a solution to this situation for the sake of the health of our children.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): Mr Speaker, I think you know that tomorrow night we were going to debate Bill 74. But I think you also know that there's going to be, I suspect, a rather large demonstration of teachers outside. I suspect there will be more than 5,000. We couldn't have a useful debate tomorrow night given that we might have 5,000 or 6,000 or 7,000 or 8,000 teachers out there demonstrating at the same time as the debate was going to happen.

So what the Conservative government did today was to announce that Bill 74 will not be debated tomorrow but is going to be debated tonight so as to avoid a possible conflict, because as you know, there's only so much democracy that the Tories can tolerate. Isn't that right? Besides, they already had one day and a half of hearings and it should be enough for the teachers to have participated in those discussions. We wouldn't want more participation than we could handle, would we now?

These Tories continue to always amaze me. The debate on Bill 74 is tonight at a quarter to 7. It will not be tomorrow night, when, yes, many of you teachers would be able to participate. We're having it tonight, and I ask those of you who are interested in hearing the views of the minister, because I suspect she will speak, and of the Tories, to tune in at a quarter to 7. The opposition parties of course will be debating it. We want you to participate via television.

GUELPH AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington): I recently attended the annual Guelph Awards of Excellence to honour businesses that have achieved the highest standards in the manufacturing, retail, service and public sectors.

In the category of tourism and marketing, awards were given by the Visitor and Convention Services to the Best Western Emerald Inn and the Willow Manor Bed and Breakfast. The Downtown Board of Management's promotions and The Ale Trail also won awards.

The chamber of commerce in the city honoured the environmentally sound initiatives of Owens Corning Canada Ltd and Blount Canada.

Kristy Dukelow of the Amberhill Collection was given the New Exporter award and young entrepreneur Kim Gadoury was recognized for her creative spirit and her business Seams Perfect. Best New Business was given to Wendy Smith of Home-Based Secretarial Services. These three awards were presented for the first time by the Business Enterprise Centre.

KPMG joined the city and chamber in presenting the Guelph Quality awards to Mandel Scientific and Lodder Brothers Plumbing in the service sector category. For manufacturing, Concast Pipe and Smurfit-MBI were recognized. Duncan McPhee and Knar Jewellery won in the retail sector, and the public sector awards went to Homewood Addiction Services, the University of Guelph's lab services and the Guelph Fire Department. The Bookshelf Café, owned by Barb and Doug Minett, was voted best downtown business.

Guelph's fast-growing business community has been thriving in recent years, certainly assisted by the initiatives of this provincial government. It has done much to ensure that all of Ontario is open for business. As our economy continues to thrive, there will be even more reasons to celebrate the success stories of entrepreneurs such as those just honoured.

SENIOR CITIZENS' MONTH

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): In the year that I've been the opposition critic for seniors, I've been waiting for this government to take some action on behalf of seniors. It has talked about elder abuse, it has talked about long-term-care beds, but I, like the seniors of Ontario, want to see some results.

Last winter, the government conducted a listening tour on retirement homes. I called and asked to be informed about the tour, only to be told two months later that the consultation was over. It happened by invitation only, behind closed doors, and now we understand that the public will not receive the report of this committee-a report paid for by taxpayers.

While the government has acknowledged the problem of crime against seniors, it has done little to address other very serious problems, like better access to health care, home care and safe, affordable housing.

A recent media report verifies that seniors in Ontario have benefited the least of all demographic groups from this government's tax cuts. Seniors built this province and we are reaping in large measure the fruits of their labours, yet over half of the seniors in Ontario, nearly 800,000, will not receive the budget's $200 tax dividend.

June is Seniors' Month, and I implore the government to take action. Seniors deserve affordable housing, access to health care, home care and the supports they need to age in place.

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): June is Seniors' Month and I'm pleased to recognize a group of senior artists visiting us today, many of whom reside in my riding of Thornhill.

The Golden Age Academy was created by Joseph Carraro in 1997 to meet the needs of many retired workers from different backgrounds. When they were young they worked as cement finishers, bricklayers, carpenters, on assembly lines or in business, but they dreamed about celebrating their senior years in the pursuit of art. They have become accomplished expressionists, sculptors and artisans. The group has grown to 55 members since its inception.

So far, the Golden Age Academy, under the presidency of Marino Toppan, has organized five exhibitions which have showcased the work of this very talented group of artists. In the future, the Golden Age Academy plans to offer courses to teach painting, sculpting, woodworking and other artistic activities free of cost to other seniors. They also hope to have a permanent exhibition in the future and are working on the development of an Internet site.

In an

article published by Correire Canadese, Golden Age Academy president Marino Toppan spoke about the importance of the retirement years and the value of seniors staying active and creative.

I would like to congratulate Joseph Carraro and Marino Toppan and all the artists from the Golden Age Academy, many of whom are with us in the gallery today. Please join me in welcoming them to the Legislature.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This morning in the media studio, many people in Ontario found out about the blatant form of health care apartheid being practised in Ontario regarding cancer patients.

Today, we're privileged to have in the House the three participants of this news conference this morning, who are also the founding members of OSECC, which is Ontarians Seeking Equal Cancer Care.

Gerry Lougheed Jr., former vice-chair of Cancer Care Ontario, Janice Skinner, a cancer patient from the Sudbury region, and René Boucher, the husband of a cancer patient, all explained their concerns about the present form of health care apartheid.

I know that the majority of people in Ontario agree with the executive members of OSECC. In a newly commissioned provincial poll, it was found that 92% of respondents support the cause for equal travel funding; that is, 92% of the people believe it is important that everyone in Ontario be treated equally. As Gerry Lougheed Jr has stated repeatedly, tumours are not interested in lists. A cancer patient who travels for cancer treatment is a cancer patient who travels for cancer treatment and we must all be treated equally. That's what OSECC wants and that's what the Liberals want.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'd like to address the issue of municipal amalgamation. This is not, of course, a new concept in Ontario. Just recently in my riding of Durham, the municipality of Clarington, formerly the township of Newcastle, celebrated its 25th anniversary as one local government for the new town that was formed from the villages of Bowmanville, Courtice, Newcastle, Newtonville, Orono, Hayden and Tyrone, just to name a few. Currently, our government is overseeing restructuring again in the amalgamation of four regional municipalities in the province.

The people of Ontario have worked hard and they deserve, above all things, lower taxes, better service, less bureaucracy and of course more accountability.

The debate is clearly over. Tax cuts do create jobs, and our government is not alone in this view. Others, such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, clearly understand this way of thinking. I refer you to a 1998 letter from a small business organization to the mayor of Flamborough which stresses the impact municipal taxes can have. In the letter, the CFIB made note of how small businesses were treated in his municipality. This is a quote: "Almost a year ago, CFIB members in the Wentworth region rated your local government very poorly in its relationship with small business."

The mayor in question is none other than Mr Ted McMeekin. It is the same person that the Liberal opposition's Dalton McGuinty has chosen to be his candidate in the riding in the upcoming provincial election. The Liberal track record is clear. Tax cuts do create jobs. The Liberals don't get it.

REPORTS, OFFICE OF THE INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that today I've laid upon the table the annual report of the Office of the Integrity Commissioner for the period from April 1, 1999, to March 31, 2000.

I further beg to inform the House that today I've laid upon the table the first annual report of the Integrity Commissioner with respect to the administration of the Lobbyists Registration Act for the 14-month period of January 15, 1999, to March 31, 2000.

REPORT, SPEAKER'S COMMISSION ON MEMBERS' COMPENSATION

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I further beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table a report of the Speaker's Commission on Members' Compensation.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GENOCIDE MEMORIAL WEEK ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA SEMAINE COMMÉMORATIVE DES GÉNOCIDES

Mr Wood moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 97,

An Act to proclaim Genocide Memorial Week in Ontario / Projet de loi 97, Loi proclamant la Semaine commémorative des génocides en Ontario.

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

The member for a short statement.

Mr Bob Wood (London West): This bill proposes to observe an annual Genocide Memorial Week in Ontario beginning in late March. The response to Bill 38 indicated a consensus and support of the observance of such a week, but that there was no consensus around the timing proposed in that bill. If there appears to be widespread support for the late March timing, I will proceed with this very important bill.

VISITORS

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I have a point of order. I am introducing a resolution to declare Simcoe Day in the province of Ontario. I wish to draw to the members' attention that Lieutenant Governor Colonel John Graves Simcoe is in the members' gallery.

Applause.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c)(ii), the House shall meet from 6:45 pm to midnight on Monday, June 19, 2000, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

JACK STOKES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to pay tribute to a former member of this Legislature, Jack Stokes, who passed away earlier this year.

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

Mr Hampton: Jack Stokes passed away earlier this year. I know you, as Speaker, attempted to attend his funeral. On that occasion, you learned some of the interesting issues of travelling in northern Ontario. I gather your plane made it to Thunder Bay and then had to turn around because it couldn't land.

Jack Stokes is someone who, in the 17 years he was in this Legislature, could tell us all a few things about travelling in our province. He was elected in 1968 to the constituency of what was then called Thunder Bay. Many of us probably wouldn't have a picture of how large that constituency was. It was the largest constituency in the province. It took in communities that were on the outskirts of the city we now call Thunder Bay. It went north all the way to Hudson Bay and took in a number of First Nations communities that you can only get to if you fly. In those days, those communities did not have an airport.

You flew by bush plane and hoped the weather was good when you wanted to leave so that you could get out again.

A number of other communities that he represented had no highway and no landing strip. You got to them by either taking the CN line or the CP line and getting off the train and visiting the community and then hoping the train would stop for you the next day or the day after when you tried to move on to visit another community.

He, himself, was at first a railway conductor. He worked for Canadian Pacific Railway. That's how he got to know, initially, many of the people in the communities that were later on to become his riding. As a Canadian Pacific Railway conductor, he got to know communities like Marathon or Terrace Bay or Schreiber, or he got into communities like Longlac. He stopped as well in many of the smaller communities along the way.

When he was first elected here, he took great pleasure-and in those days it was the Conservative government, first under Premier Robarts and then under Premier Davis-in taking members of the government into the far reaches of his riding and giving them a geography lesson. He thought it was important that every member of the Legislature understand how large this province is and how diverse it is.

He worked especially hard for First Nations. He was one of the first members of this Legislature to, on an almost daily basis, bring issues regarding First Nations into this Legislature. Many members at first reacted by saying: "Oh, these are really federal matters. Why are you bringing them here?" But he brought it home to people that we are all citizens of this province-native and non-native-and that it simply won't do to classify some issues as, "These are in the federal jurisdiction and we have no responsibility."

He was also someone who understood the long-term issues and the long-term challenges of having a province that is for the most part forested, and forested on crown land. He regularly raised the issues of forest ecology and forest environment. He regularly raised the issue that as a province during the 1950s, the 1960s and the 1970s we were very good at harvesting our forests; we were abysmal in terms of the regeneration or the renewal of our forests. He often raised the issue that if we were going to harvest our forests, we had to set aside money to ensure that there was funding to renew the forests.

I was very pleased, in 1993 and 1994, to introduce legislation to create the forest renewal trust fund and the forestry futures trust fund, but the credit for those really ought to have gone to Jack Stokes, because he was the originator of those ideas.

After he had served in the Legislature for some time, the members of this House thought enough of him that he became the Speaker. He was not a member of the government party; he was a member, at the time, of the third party. The members of the Legislature recognized him as Speaker, and he was Speaker in this Legislature from 1977 to 1981.

Anyone who was here then will tell you he was a very tough Speaker. I recommend, Speaker, that you read some of his decisions. He was noted for kicking members of his own party out of the House. In fact, he was noted for being harder on members of his own party than of either of the other two parties. Again, Speaker, I recommend that you read some of his decisions.

After serving in the Legislature for 17 years, he decided he wanted to step down. One of the reasons he wanted to step down was because his wife, Helen, who had always been challenged with some physical disabilities, was having a more and more difficult time with her health. So he retired from the Legislature in 1985 and spent a great deal of his time after that with his wife.

But he didn't withdraw from the public scene altogether, and some of the people who will miss him most will be from institutions like Lakehead University and Confederation College, because he continued to be active in the causes of those institutions until just before his passing. He also became one of the people who looked after the forestry futures fund and how the fund was being used to regenerate forests that had been decimated by forest fires, pests, disease or other natural disasters such as blowdown.

He took particular pleasure in travelling into the far reaches of the province, where a forest fire may have devastated thousands of hectares of land, and being on the ground and part of the team that would prescribe how that forest would be brought back to life.

I attended Jack's funeral, and there were many people of public life who attended his funeral. Most important, virtually the whole community of Schreiber turned out for his funeral and came to the Legion Hall afterwards to pay their continuing respects.

Jack Stokes was an incredible person. He went from being a conductor on the railway, to being a very honoured member of this Legislature, to being a Speaker of this Legislature, to being a true spokesman for aboriginal people and for people across northern Ontario.

We will all miss him, and I know that most of all his family will miss him. I want to say that Ontario was very fortunate to have someone of the dedication, the stature and the longevity of Jack Stokes to serve the province and to serve this Legislature.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): I would like to associate my remarks with those of the leader of the third party in paying tribute to Jack Stokes and expressing our sympathy and concern for his family as well.

I had the pleasure of serving with Jack Stokes from 1977 to 1985. As was pointed out, Jack was appointed Speaker in 1977 by the then Premier, Bill Davis. Of course, procedures have changed now in the Legislative Assembly in that we elect our Speaker, but at that time the Premier of the day was the person who actually appointed the Speaker, so it was somewhat unusual to appoint a member from the opposition. I want to remind members of the Legislative Assembly that this wasn't all done in perhaps kindness by Bill Davis, but it was a recognition that we had a minority Parliament at that particular point in time, and perhaps there was a little bit of strategy associated with it.

I want to say, as did the leader of the third party in his remarks, that Jack was as hard on the opposition as he was on the government of the day, on whose bench I sat, and that was sometimes felt by members of the government with a great deal of glee. We really enjoyed that part of it, I must say.

Jack was a man of not too many words when you talked to him about a particular issue. He was straightforward and to the point. But you always knew, in talking to other members of the Legislative Assembly, including ministers of the crown then, that Jack was really quite a unique problem-solver for the constituency that he represented. I believe he was probably an older-style politician, as I think politics has changed significantly since then. He spent a great deal of his time caring about his particular constituents and seeking solutions to individual and community problems of the area that he represented.

He was extremely good at it. Because he did have a great deal of integrity and because he was a direct person, I believe the ministers of the day gave Jack Stokes a lot of width and breadth in terms of the arguments he put forward and worked together with Jack to make things better for the people he represented.

As Speaker, he carried out the role in a very forceful way. He would often bring members to order very quickly, tell them to get to the point. He wouldn't allow members to rattle on and he would ask them to please come to the point very quickly. At that particular time, I can remember raising a point of order with him and he did bring me to order fairly quickly. If people want to look in Hansard in May 1979, they can find that particular exchange. But Jack knew the rules. He relied upon the clerks, as most Speakers do, but he did exhibit independence in giving his judgments and in being fair to members of the Legislature.

I have a great deal of respect, as do my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party, for Jack's integrity, for his tremendous work on behalf of the people he represented in the north and for, I think, being one of the most excellent Speakers we've ever had in this Legislative Assembly.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): On behalf of Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal caucus, I'm honoured today to join Mr Sterling and Mr Hampton in paying tribute to the memory of the late Jack Stokes and to expressing to his wife, Helen, and to his family our appreciation for the outstanding public service that Jack carried on, not just here in the Legislature but in his community life in Schreiber and northwestern Ontario.

Norm and Howard have said it very well. I'm just thinking about some of the things the government House leader said. He was very apt and very appropriate. Jack Stokes was a conductor. Jack understood what all good railroad conductors understood: that if you're the conductor, you're in charge. When Jack ascended those steps 23 years ago to become Speaker for the 31st Legislative Assembly, he followed the sweetly tempered, sweetly voiced Russell Rowe from Cobourg-we've had members here from Northumberland who are sweetly voiced and sweetly tempered. Jack understood that his job was to be in charge.

I don't want to embarrass the member for Nickel Belt, but I have to tell you, Norm Sterling was absolutely right: Jack Stokes was never more authoritative than when on a regular basis he called not just the member from North Renfrew to his place, but Mr Speaker Stokes seemed to have a particular ability to call Elie Martel to order. He did it regularly, and he did it with effect. Those exchanges tended to be good examples for the other truants in the place, and I would certainly include myself as foremost among that group of people.

But Jack was, as Mr Sterling has observed, one of the really great Speakers of this Legislature. In 1977, when Mr Stokes became the Speaker, he was the first non-government Speaker that we had had in almost 60 years. He played a significant role in changing the culture. Mr Sterling talked about his relationships with the table. It's hard to forget Mr Speaker Stokes's relationship with the renowned Clerk of the day, Mr Roderick Lewis. You had to have been here to have watched the chemistry between that chair and that chair. I think it worked out in the public interest, although it was not always easy.

I have to say to my colleagues that Mr Stokes became Speaker after he was whip, and he earned his spurs in the NDP whipping, if you can imagine, people like Morton Shulman. I say to the current whips, you've got a very soft and easy life, because this has become a place of toeing the line. I remember Jack telling me about the things he learned as whip, and he came to the speakership, as the government House leader said, in a minority environment when we were all learning the rules, trying to play the game in a very different context.

You see, in a minority government everybody shares in the responsibility, I say to my friends, in the opposition as well as in the government. I remember that day, as I'm sure Mr Sterling does, in the spring of 1978 when we had all more or less decided we didn't want an election and we almost stumbled into an election that nobody wanted. The fact that we didn't get there was to some real degree to the credit of Mr Speaker Stokes.

Jack liked this place; he truly liked this place. He liked members of all sides. I remember that those were the years when Leo Bernier was king of the north. It was quite commonplace to see big Leo Bernier and little Pat Reid and Jack Stokes behind the chair having one of those northern ecumenical meetings to discuss some issue that was of particular interest to the north. Jack played, as Mr Hampton has rightly observed, an enormous

part in bringing the issues of the north to this chamber. That Amethyst Room we've got downstairs is to some real degree the work of Jack Stokes. He reminded us on a daily basis, whether it was mining, transportation or certainly forestry, that the north had an extremely important role to play that was not always understood by those of us in southern Ontario.

I want to conclude these remarks by saying on this day of all days: Jack Stokes came here in 1967. He had a riding that was about 110,000 square miles. It went from the Lakehead to the Hudson Bay shore: Lavant Lake, Pickle Lake and scores of little places in between. Probably the biggest places were Schreiber, Terrace Bay and Manitouwadge. Back then, members were paid probably $10,000 or $12,000, there were no constituency offices and there were no funds for doing all the kinds of work we now take for granted at the local level.

Can you imagine coming here in 1967 under those conditions to be the kind of member that Jack went on to be for 18 years in a riding of 105,000 or 110,000 square miles? If Jack Stokes did nothing else-and he did much else-he showed those of us who came behind him what true public and community service was, on the ground in a big riding. That's why, when it was all over, everybody-Liberal, Tory, Social Crediter, New Democrat, you name it-voted for Jack Stokes, and they should have, because Jack Stokes set a standard of public service that was absolutely outstanding and truly exemplary.

I want to say to Helen and to his family that we cherish his memory and we will never forget what he did for those people in northwestern Ontario and what he did for this chamber and this Legislature.

The Speaker: I thank all the members for their comments, and I will make sure copies are sent to the family.

VISITORS

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to tell the members that we have a formidable and tenacious defender of medicare in our midst today. I'd like to introduce Christine Burdett, chair of Friends of Medicare in Alberta. She will be speaking at a meeting on saving medicare at Eastminster church at 7:00 tonight, and all are welcome. Welcome, Christine.

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. As many as 14 people may have died in Walkerton, and the medical officer of health, Dr McQuigge, believes that lives could have been saved if he had been notified earlier that E coli had been found in the community's drinking water. Samples were taken on May 15, and Dr McQuigge wasn't able to issue a boil-water order until May 21, some six days later.

We have now learned that you received multiple warnings from the medical officers of health for Ontario telling you that by their being kept in the dark with respect to water test results, public health was being put at risk. Why did you ignore their warnings made directly to you?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): The events that happened in Walkerton are indeed a tragedy and something that I don't think anyone in this province ever wants to see again. That's why there are four investigations underway, including the public inquiry, the OPP investigation, the investigation through the Ministry of the Environment's enforcement and investigations branch as well as the coroner's inquest. These four investigations are going to get to the bottom of what happened in Walkerton so that we can ensure that something like this never happens again in our province.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, I have today in my hand a series of letters exchanged between your ministry and the Canadian Institute of Public Health Inspectors. They tell you on an ongoing basis that they are being kept out of the loop when it comes to water test results and that public health is consequently placed at risk. They told you as early as September 1999 and as recently as April 2000 that medical officers of health are not being notified when there is contaminated water.

Here is one quote from a letter dated April 4, 2000, directed to you: "As stated in my previous letter, local health units used to get a copy of every ... water sample that did not meet the provincial drinking water standards in their jurisdiction. This procedure was phased out a number of years ago, so the medical officer of health no longer is informed, via this route, of any water quality problems in his" or her "area."

Here is another warning in black and white, Minister, directed personally to you on April 4, 2000, letting you know there is a serious problem here, because our medical officers of health in Ontario are being kept out of the loop. As such they're not receiving information in a timely way, and as such they can't take the necessary steps to save lives and prevent people from being sick.

Why did you fail to protect people, and why did you ignore these warnings that came from our medical officers of health?

Hon Mr Newman: We have ordered that all relevant documents be provided to Justice O'Connor, the OPP, the coroner and the Ministry of the Environment's investigations branch. Consistent with existing government protocol, the assistant Deputy Attorney General is responsible for forwarding relevant materials to the appropriate authorities. We are fully co-operating with all these ongoing investigations into the tragedy at Walkerton, including the public inquiry. We would expect everyone to co-operate.

We're also fully committed to responding to requests for information and will make public as much information as we appropriately can. But the bottom line is that we want to get to the bottom of it so it never happens again. In conclusion, we all want answers to what happened.

Mr McGuinty: These are letters from the Canadian Institute of Public Health Inspectors. They wrote to you and to your predecessor saying we've got a big problem in Ontario when it comes to water safety because there is no requirement that they be provided with information showing positive test results. They weren't getting the information telling them that water was about to make people in a community sick, that that water might kill people in that community. You responded, or your predecessors responded, on a regular basis by telling them simply, "We've got what we need in place, so just shove off."

Here's a copy of a letter sent by Tony Clement, your predecessor, to Mr Harnett, chair of the Healthy Environments Ontario branch of the Canadian Institute of Public Health Inspectors. This is what he says:

"Dear Mr Hartnett:

"Thank you for your letter of September 8, 1999, requesting an amendment to the Ontario Water Resources Act [and] assurances from this ministry regarding the immediate reporting of adverse drinking water test results to the local medical officer of health."

He then goes on to say, for all intents and purposes, that the government already has guidelines in place and they're fine, so thank you very much.

Minister, once again we have a paper trail that leads to you and your predecessors. You were in fact put on notice, in this case by the Canadian Institute of Public Health Inspectors, telling you they needed information, they weren't getting it and they were afraid people were going to get sick and die. Why did you fail to heed, once again, warnings given to you by credible parties telling you that people were going to get sick or die if they didn't get information that they desperately wanted?

Hon Mr Newman: These are the very issues that the four investigations will look at, including the public inquiry, to get to the bottom of what happened in Walkerton. That's why there is an existing government protocol in place to share that information, and I know that this government will provide any information it has, because we want to get to the bottom of it.

I say to the leader of the official opposition that on May 29 I announced a proposed regulation that will be coming forward that deals with the notification process. It makes abundantly clear the responsibilities of private labs, of the Ministry of the Environment, of the medical officers of health and of the municipalities and public utilities commissions in this province to exchange information regarding adverse water tests.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question.

Mr McGuinty: To the same minister: Let me get this straight. You now want us to laud you, to congratulate you for passing a regulation that might have saved lives at Walkerton, the kind of regulation that the Canadian Institute of Public Health Inspectors pleaded with you to pass six and eight and 10 months ago. Is that what you're asking us to do now? It's too late. You should have done it back then. You should have listened to the warnings back then at that time and not now that we've got a body count as high as 14 in Ontario.

Let me tell you what else these public health inspectors said. They said that your guidelines were meaningless because no one was enforcing them. In February 2000, Ron Hartnett of the Canadian Institute of Public Health Inspectors writes to Mr Clement and he says the following:

"Dear Minister Clement:...

"You have outlined the actions an owner of a water system is supposed to take, but who is ensuring that the owner is actually doing this required work?... [If] no one is ensuring that the required actions are, in fact, being done, how would the medical officer of health know that there is a problem with a water supply system" in the first place?

Again, we have another paper trail leading directly to your office, a paper trail which shows beyond any reasonable doubt that you were negligent, that you ignored warnings from credible parties, people who were in the business of making us healthy, keeping us well, preventing us from getting sick and, above all, preventing us from getting so sick that we might die.

Minister, why did you ignore these letters and these warnings, and why today do you fail to do what is necessary to ensure we have no repetition of this disaster?

Hon Mr Newman: The protection of the environment and the protection of our drinking water is an issue that we take very seriously as a government. It's an issue that I take very seriously as Minister of the Environment. That's why there are the four investigations underway, and all relevant documents will be provided to Justice O'Connor, the OPP, the coroner and the Ministry of the Environment's investigative branch, so that we can get to the bottom of what happened in Walkerton.

There is a regulation coming forward that deals with notification, the exchange of information between the laboratories, the municipalities, the public utilities commissions, the Ministry of the Environment and the medical officer of health for the area. It's a very serious matter, and we want to ensure that something that happened in Walkerton never ever again happens in our province.

Mr McGuinty: We have a series of letters from the Canadian Institute of Public Health Inspectors telling you and your predecessors in black and white that they needed a change made. They needed something to be done by you to make sure that they got information in a timely way about contaminated drinking water. They were telling you that they couldn't get their job done, they couldn't fulfill their responsibilities unless you did something in the government. You people in the government had to do something so they would get the information they needed to save lives. You didn't do that.

Now you tell us that you passed a regulation after seven died-maybe it's as high as 14. And last week, late on Friday, the Premier holds a press conference and he tells us, not that he's hiring 100 inspectors or enforcement officers-he doesn't tell us anything of the sort-he tells us he's hiring a management consultant.

Minister, knowing what you now know, knowing what you've always known, will you today, setting aside negligence in the past, recognizing your responsibilities today, agree to hire 100 inspectors and enforcement officers so we can make sure this kind of tragedy doesn't happen again?

Hon Mr Newman: With respect to the beginning part of the Leader of the Opposition's question, I encourage him not to jump to conclusions, not to point fingers or assess blame, because the investigations are underway and I think the investigations ought to be given the time they need to do the work they are required to do.

Public health and safety and a clean environment are top priorities for the government. We should continue to strive to do better so that we can do more to protect the environment in the province. That's why Valerie Gibbons has been retained to lead a team that will provide counsel on standards and best practices to safeguard the public and environmental health and safety and to develop guidelines to ensure that best practices and standards are communicated and enforced in our province.

Mr McGuinty: Let's add it all together and maybe you can tell me what it adds up to. We've got the Provincial Auditor who warned you on two separate occasions through two separate reports about a pending disaster. We've got the Environmental Commissioner who provided the same kind of warning. We've got internal information from your own ministry providing us with the same kinds of warnings. We've got a letter now from the Canadian Institute of Public Health Inspectors, in fact several letters, telling us that trouble was about to happen because they weren't getting the information they needed.

We find out that the mayor of Walkerton himself sent you a letter saying that they simply couldn't cope with their responsibilities. And what you and the Premier do last week is you hire a management consultant? We don't need management, we need leadership. We've got to get this government off their duff, recognize the mistakes they've made in the past and begin to take the kinds of steps in the future that will prevent another Walkerton from happening.

Minister, understanding all of that, having thrown it at you here today, will you now recognize that the only responsible thing, or at least one of the responsible things, to do is to hire 100 inspectors and enforcement officers so we can begin once and for all to do the work that your ministry should have been doing all along?

Hon Mr Newman: As we look to the future in environmental protection in our province, the work of Valerie Gibbons will ensure that we remain at the forefront of environmental health and safety standards for water, land and air in the province. Valerie Gibbons and her team will provide an objective view on environmental health and safety practices and she'll work closely with the deputy minister. The work she will do will in no way hinder the four investigations that are underway.

These investigations are going to look to the past to see what happened, ask the question why and also how we can ensure that it doesn't happen again. We all want answers to what happened in Walkerton and these investigations are going to provide those answers. But in the meantime we're doing everything that we humanly can to ensure that Ontarians have a safe and clean supply of water today and in the future.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of the Environment and it's about the quality of our drinking water. Believe me, Minister, people are pleased that your Premier finally recognizes that you need help. But merely hiring a consultant, a babysitter, indicates that you don't recognize the magnitude of the drinking water problem you've created in this province nor do you recognize how far your government has fallen in terms of being able to do anything about it.

You've cut 900 staff from the Ministry of the Environment. You've reduced the number of water inspections by more than two thirds. When communities call your ministry because they've found E coli in the water, your ministry spokesmen say, "Sorry, we can't do anything about it; we don't have the resources."

The Premier said on Friday that you can hire more staff if you recommend it. Well, you've had some time now. How many staff are you going to recommend, who are you going to hire and when are they going to start?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): It's important to note, I say to the leader of the third party, when he was part of a government, they went outside of government to seek expert advice. They did it with Stephen Lewis on the race relations issue. You also went outside to John Sewell on planning issues. You looked outside of your government to try and make things better in the province.

By going outside and getting someone like Valerie Gibbons, who was a deputy minister for nine years in the Ontario civil service, someone who's now in private practice, who brings that expertise, I think we're going to be able to have some recommendations brought forward so that we can best position the Ministry of the Environment to protect the people of Ontario, to protect the environment of Ontario, to ensure that our water is safe, our land is safe and our air is safe.

Mr Hampton: The question was, when are you going to hire the staff and when are they going to start? I recognize that you personally need help. Everybody in Ontario recognizes that you personally need help. But the issue is the magnitude of the problem: Here in Toronto, 11 of 14 beaches are closed because of threats and worries about E coli contamination; my constituency, as far away from Toronto as you can get-hundreds of boil-water advisories, Minister.

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario has told you that in order to do the infrastructure work in terms of the water plants and the sewer plants, $9 billion is needed, but your so-called water fund is broke.

The Premier said you could hire staff to go out there and start addressing this pressing problem. The question is, Minister, when are you going to hire them, when are they going to go to work, and what are you waiting for?

Hon Mr Newman: There has been someone hired to make some recommendations as to how we can best position the Ministry of the Environment so that we have the best-positioned ministry for the 21st century so the people of Ontario have adequate protection-in fact, have the best protection possible-to ensure that the air, land and water in our province is indeed protected.

But I want to bring to everyone's attention a quote from Christina Blizzard's book Right Turn. She's talking about the New Democratic Party, and she says on page 160, "The party that made so much hay out of environmental issues ended up doing very little that was positive in the five years that they were in power."

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Final supplementary?

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): Minister, that was pathetic. Nobody is going to take you at all seriously if you try to compare your environmental record to the New Democratic Party record when we were in government. Don't be so ridiculous. We expanded spending, and you've cut it. The reality is, Minister, that you are not doing the inspections any more.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Government members, come to order, please. I need to hear the question.

Ms Churley: On May 29, the Premier told this House that cuts to the MOE had no impact in the delivery of service. But you know that isn't the case. We showed you documents that show that your own ADM told you the cutbacks would reduce service. You cut water plant inspections from 470 a year down to 152. Your staff is so overloaded you haven't been able to get out the 1998 report from the drinking water surveillance program. The regulation that you keep bragging about will not be worth the paper it's printed on unless you bring in the resources to make it happen.

Minister, when are you going to admit that your cuts could create another Walkerton, could cause more deaths? Will you tell us today that you will hire back, immediately, the staff you fired? A consultant, one consultant, to hold your hand is not going to do us any good. We need the staff and the resources brought back now, Minister.

Hon Mr Newman: I find it interesting that the inspection numbers the member opposite uses happen to be for the year that there was the OPSEU strike.

I want to say to her that this is what Leah Casselman, president of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, says: "I'm surprised they are hiring her because she's straight up. She doesn't play the political game." That's what Leah Casselman said.

I say to the member opposite that it wasn't this party's environmental policies that were rejected in 1995 or 1999; it was your party's.

CANCER TREATMENT

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the acting Premier. I want to return to your government's discrimination against northern cancer patients.

Last fall our caucus raised the issue of Donna Graham of Pickle Lake, who had to drive six hours one way to Thunder Bay in order to get cancer care and who only received a fraction of her costs; the case of Gladys Whelan, a pensioner from Fort Frances who, after three trips to Thunder Bay, stopped going for cancer treatment because she couldn't afford to travel any more; the case of Anna Watson, who came from Fort Frances about six weeks ago and was in this gallery, who spoke of the thousands and thousands of dollars she was out for cancer care that she had to pay out of her own pocket.

Today at Queen's Park we have two other individuals, this time from northeastern Ontario, who have been directly affected by your government's discrimination: Janice Skinner, who has spent over $40,000 travelling from Capreol, my hometown, to Toronto because her form of cancer is not treated in northern Ontario; secondly, the case of René Boucher, who drives his wife from Iroquois Falls to Sudbury for cancer treatment and who has also spent thousands of dollars.

Those two individuals know that your government is paying 100% of the cost for cancer care for southern Ontario patients while they get back only a fraction of their costs. Janice Skinner said the following today: "I want to be treated fairly. We pay taxes. We all live in Ontario. I feel we are being discriminated against. I just want to be treated fairly."

Minister, when is your government going to end its discrimination against northern cancer patients?

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Chair of Management Board.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I know the Minister of Northern Development and Mines would like to answer this.

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I'm pleased to respond to the member's question.

There was a recent letter to the Sudbury Star from Dr Shumak, from Cancer Care Ontario, who mentions that some of the criticism coming from the opposition is just serving to confuse the issue. I think we have to put the facts on the table to make sure everybody understands that there are two different programs that the members are trying to confuse to try to sow those seeds in northern Ontario.

As an example, if somebody from Tobermory had to travel 300 and some kilometres down to London for hip replacement surgery, that individual would not receive any funding,

whereas somebody from Smooth Rock Falls travelling to Sudbury for a similar procedure would receive funding to assist in their costs.

The goal of this government is to make sure that northern Ontario patients have access to health care services as close to home as possible, and that's why this government is making record investments in cancer services in northern Ontario, in kidney dialysis services in northern Ontario, in new MRIs, more operations and more doctors and specialists in the north. The goal is to ensure that patients get care as close to home and as quickly as possible. It's a goal we've made major strides on, and we're moving ahead in the future.

Ms Martel: Your government surely does have two different programs. You've got a deluxe plan for southern Ontario patients and a second-class plan for second-class cancer patients from northern Ontario. That's what we've got happening here, Minister. Why don't you admit it? It would cost your government $6 million to end this discrimination.

I remind you that earlier this spring you had $5 million to blow on partisan television ads which did nothing to add to front-line health care. You've already committed to paying $23.1 million to cover 100% of the cost of southern Ontario patients to access care. In addition to that, you had a $5-billion surplus from the last budget, and all you can find is one cent for health care versus one dollar for tax cuts. It would cost you $6 million to end this, and your government has done nothing.

A month ago the finance minister said publicly that this program would be reviewed. Over a month ago, your Minister of Health said this program would reviewed. Two cancer patients from northern Ontario are here today, and they're telling you nothing has been done. They're tired of being treated like second-class citizens. When is your government going to put up the small amount of $6 million to end your discrimination against our patients?

Hon Mr Hudak: I know there's the incentive to play a little bit of politics with this and try to mislead the people of northern Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. You need to withdraw that.

Hon Mr Hudak: I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

The fact of the matter is that there is the northern Ontario travel grant program, which doesn't exist for patients anywhere else in the province. This is only for northern Ontario patients, to help them get the services they need and to overcome the costs of travel.

With respect to an entirely separate temporary program from Cancer Care Ontario, patients in similar circumstances with respect to re-referrals or times they can't get timely service, Cancer Care Ontario would treat those patients the same, whatever part of the province they're from, when they're in similar circumstances.

The fact of the matter is that what they don't understand and what they don't seem to come to grips with is that it's the Mike Harris government that is building a new hospital in the Sudbury area, where you're from. You had the opportunity to build that hospital, to add $100 million to that hospital. You didn't do that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister, take a seat, please.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I thank you, and on perhaps a more gentle track, I have two delegations, one of which will be leaving shortly, which I'd like to introduce to the House.

The Speaker: That's not a point of order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Not during question period, they don't. I say to the Minister of Energy, during question period they do not. We do not allow question period to be used for that. They have not done that, and I will not. I say to the Minister of Energy, they have not.

New question, member for Sudbury.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is also to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Minister, this is not about politics; it's about people. It's about people who cannot afford the cost of being treated for cancer. It has nothing to do with partisan politics.

Let me explain to you very slowly but very clearly. Mary Jane comes from Toronto, travels north 400 kilometres to Sudbury to be treated for cancer. All her air travel costs are paid; all her hotel costs are paid; all her meal costs are paid; all her taxi costs are paid.

Janice Skinner travels the same 400 kilometres, except she travels them south to Toronto, because Janice Skinner's cancer cannot be treated in Sudbury. She gets 31 cents a kilometre, one way. That's $124. She receives no hotel costs, no meal costs, no taxi costs. As the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, I want you to explain to Janice Skinner why northerners are being discriminated against by the Mike Harris government.

Hon Mr Hudak: I quoted from a letter from Dr Shumak, which I will do again. Dr Shumak is the CEO for Cancer Care Ontario. He backs up what I'm saying, that there are two different sets of programs. One is a permanent program to help northern Ontario residents.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister, take a seat.

Sorry for the interruption. Minister.

Hon Mr Hudak: As Dr Shumak says, there are two different sets of programs. They're trying to confuse for political gain, and I know that's what they're about. It says they're designed to meet different purposes and in fact Dr Shumak, the expert in the area, says there is no inequitable treatment between northern and southern patients who need to be re-referred for radiation treatment.

The member says this is not about politics. The member knows the facts of this matter, but that doesn't stop the member, in his steely heart and political calculations, from taking these poor people with his class action lawsuit and telling them things that are not true. They're against what Dr Shumak is saying. You want to know who is acting in politics? It's the member opposite, who's taking advantage of his constituents for his own political gain.

The Speaker: The time is up. Supplementary.

Mr Bartolucci: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe the minister has gone a little bit overboard in his defence of a bad policy and is impugning motives. My only motive is to ensure that there is fair treatment.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): Supplementary to the same minister. Northern patients who have to travel down here don't hang their hat on the bureaucratic gobbledegook that you're giving us in this House. If you're a northern cancer patient and you cannot get that treatment in their region, northern Ontario, and have to be, let's say, redirected to southern Ontario for treatment, they don't get the same fee, the same support, that a southerner gets when they have to be redirected to the north. That's the difference, and that's all they understand.

They don't understand all your different bureaucratese that it's redirect, re-referral. If we have to travel south because we can't get into the very good cancer centre in Sudbury, we get the one-way mileage. If somebody in Oakville has to go to Sudbury or Thunder Bay, they get up to $4,000, all expenses paid. We don't like the difference; it's not fair. When are you going to fix it?

Hon Mr Hudak: It's true that there is a northern Ontario travel grant program that does not exist in any other parts of the province to help northerners to overcome the cost of travel for distances. So as the member says, if somebody from Oakville, for example, had to travel to Ottawa or to London for treatment, say for knee surgery or a hip replacement, that individual would not get the costs covered,

whereas somebody from the north, for similar travel on a re-referral or redirect, would have some of those costs returned. But the point of the matter is-I know that the only vision the Liberals have for northern Ontario health care is to send patients all over the place, whether to the States or other provinces or down south. Our vision for health care in the north is quite a bit different. We want to bring services to northern Ontario; we want to bring more doctors-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister, take a seat. Order. If members want to shout across, we'll just wait, and the clock will continue to run.

TRANSPORTATION OF STUDENTS

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): My question is for the Minister of Education and it concerns funding for school busing in my riding of Waterloo-Wellington, which comprises areas such as the Waterloo region public school board, the Waterloo separate school board, the Upper Grand District School Board and the Wellington separate school board. I would like to first of all acknowledge the efforts of my colleagues the member for Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey and the member for Guelph-Wellington for their leadership on this issue as well.

We have heard from stakeholders, including board officials and school bus operators, and their first message is one of appreciation to the minister for the additional $23 million in funding recently budgeted for pupil transportation. At the same time, we are hearing that funding inequities need to be addressed. For example, boards which cut costs some years ago are apparently receiving less relative to boards which did not find savings during that time. There are also concerns that rural boards which have fewer students but much longer bus rides are at a funding disadvantage relative to urban areas.

Would the minister update this House on how these new dollars might alleviate these kinds of funding problems in the future?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): I thank the member for the question. I have had many discussions with the caucus colleagues he has mentioned about this issue. The transportation of students to schools is extremely important. We want to make sure that it's available, that it's safe, that our students are arriving ready to learn and well-transported, if you will. There's no question, as the honourable member focuses on, that some boards have done a very good job, have been very cost-effective, while others have not been able to take those steps.

We've put forward interim funding this year for those school boards, primarily for rural and northern boards, remote boards that have some significant challenges. That brought a total of $600 million for transportation grants, the highest it has been. But we also know that we need to do more work about how boards get that money, because it's still not supporting them in the way it needs to. We have a working group that is doing that work now to see how we can best financially support those boards to have appropriate bus transportation for our students.

The providers have certainly been experiencing some cost pressures, and we want to make sure that we do not jeopardize this very important service for our students.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary?

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington): Minister, this is a very serious issue in our riding. Our constituents want our school boards to be diligent in finding efficiency and in spending every tax dollar wisely. One way that has been suggested for this to occur is for boards to form consortia, to join forces and co-operate, for instance, in things like designing school bus routes.

What I would like to know is: Do you agree with the concept of consortia, and what steps will you take as minister to ensure that the boards work together and direct as many education dollars as possible to the classroom?

Interjection.

Hon Mrs Ecker: The honourable member from the opposition says there's nothing new about consortia for school boards and transportation. He's right. There wasn't anything new. Their government, unfortunately, didn't take steps to ensure that was indeed happening.

We are taking steps to make sure that those school boards who have not explored this option should indeed do that. Some boards have already saved many millions of dollars, which they're plowing back into the classroom, by being efficient in transportation, by doing consortia among themselves or the coterminous boards. I know, just even in Durham region, some of the potential savings from doing that are quite significant. So we are encouraging that. We're doing it through a number of ways. Most recently, we have money available to boards for the information technology that allows them to do that better.

Again, some boards have moved forward with that; others have not been able to. We want to make sure that they have those technology supports. Again, the goal here is to make sure our students have the bus transportation they need and that it is done in the most cost-effective fashion possible.

WATER QUALITY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. My question's about mission impossible, that is, your telling the people of this province that you are going to have 630 water treatment plants thoroughly and completely inspected-remembering they take over a week apiece to do if they're to be done properly by expert staff who are suitably qualified, acceptably qualified, know the ins and outs of water treatment plants-you're going to do 630 plants this year, when in 1998-99 you conducted 68% fewer inspections than in 1993-94, the year before your government took office.

You said last week you've cut the Ministry of the Environment budget by 44%. You have at least 800 people out the door, probably more, and 37 of those employees were dedicated to water plant inspections.

My question is this: Minister, how on earth are you going to do it properly? How are you going to inspect all of those plants, with qualified inspectors, the way they're supposed to be inspected, and at the same time not be inspecting all the sewage treatment plants in this province that spew forth all kinds of contaminated water?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): Again, we are reviewing all certificates of approval for the water facilities in the province. We are going to ensure that they're all done by the end of this year. We're going to ensure that certificates of approval will be done once every three years thereafter. We're going beyond that: We're going to ensure that each of the 630 facilities in the province are indeed inspected by the end of this year by qualified personnel, and we're going to see that happens.

Mr Bradley: Of course, anybody who knows this file at all knows this cannot be done-that you cannot do it with the staff you have at the present time unless you're pulling people from every other job in the ministry, people who may not have the specific qualifications and people who should be doing other important jobs within the ministry. Either that or you're going to have to head out into the private sector and find the people that you fired out the door to do those inspections for you, and there aren't even enough of those people.

The Premier has said that somehow, once this bulge is over, you're not going to need permanent staff to conduct those inspections. I know and you know, and anybody who knows this field well knows, that you cannot thoroughly and appropriately inspect all of those plants in a year, and they know that you'll be abandoning sewage treatment plants, which also need inspection. How is it, then, that you're going to be able to maintain a once-a-year

schedule of inspection in the years to come, or is it true that you're going to revert back to the once every three years, which proved to be totally inadequate and produced the disastrous results which we see in this province already?

Hon Mr Newman: I remind the member opposite that each and every water facility in this province will be inspected this year and that they will be inspected by qualified personnel to ensure that each and every facility is in compliance. If a facility is not in compliance, a field order will be issued, and we're going to ensure that it is done.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): My question is for the Solicitor General. Public safety is one of our government's top priorities. We believe that one of the best ways to improve community safety is to invest money into front-line policing. Last month, we presented the Waterloo Regional Police Service with a cheque for $239,597 as part of our community policing partnership program. Through our community policing partnership program, the Waterloo Regional Police Service will get an additional 53 front-line police officers. To date, 42 of those officers are already on the streets of Kitchener Centre.

On the same day, you and I also presented a cheque for $30,000 to the Waterloo Regional Police Service for their RIDE program, Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere. That means that since 1995 our government has given over $155,000 to their Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere program. Through our Partners Against Crime front-line policing grants, Waterloo Regional Police have also received $20,000 in 1999 to purchase Stop Stick tire deflation devices.

I would also like to tell the House that community agencies in Kitchener Centre have also been recipients of our Partners Against Crime community crime prevention grant program. And this morning, I presented the Kitchener Downtown Business Association with $30,000 to assist with their graffiti-busters project.

Minister, all these investments are being made by our government to help keep the streets of Kitchener Centre safe. Could you tell the House about some other investments that our government is making to help keep our community safe?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Solicitor General): I'd like to thank the member for Kitchener Centre for the question. As the people of Ontario know, the battle against crime takes place not simply with the front-line police officers, but also in our use of science in combatting crime. If I could say a couple of words about the Centre of Forensic Sciences, our Ontario Centre of Forensic Sciences is acknowledged world-wide for their expertise and for being cutting-edge in terms of certain areas, particularly in DNA. We recognize the importance of DNA testing in the fight against crime.

Over the last few years, we've doubled the number of staff and we've doubled the amount of space dedicated to our DNA testing.

Recently in the papers, they were criticizing the federal government in terms of the ability of their police to turn around their samples in tests of DNA. It's a matter of months that they're testing. I'm proud to say that at the forensic centre in Ontario, our turnover time is 48 hours. Forty-eight hours is the shortest time scientifically in which analysis can be done.

Mr Wettlaufer: Thank you, Minister. It is nice to know that unlike the federal Liberals, our government is supporting a wide range of initiatives to fight crime, from the front-line police officers on our streets to new and innovative techniques at the Centre of Forensic Sciences.

You mentioned that our investments in the Centre of Forensic Sciences have led to a reduction in DNA turnaround time and that the size of the laboratory and the number of staff have doubled. The federal Auditor General released a report recently, criticizing the federal Liberals and their lack of support for the RCMP laboratory system and the backlog in DNA testing. He went on to suggest that this backlog was a threat to public safety. Minister, would you please tell the House and the people of Kitchener Centre about your concerns with the lack of federal Liberal action in this important area of crime-fighting?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Recently, I wrote to Anne McLellan, who's the justice minister federally, urging her to institute a national DNA bank. There are three areas in which the current DNA testing is failing nationally, as I believe. The first one is that we as a government, along with the Ontario chiefs of police and the Canadian chiefs of police, have been calling for the testing of DNA upon arrest, just as we test and take the samples of fingerprints, because it's a totally unobtrusive way of testing.

Second, we believe there should be a retroactive universal collection of DNA from all the convicts who are currently in the penitentiaries and prisons. Clearly, if we were to have this universal sampling, we would be able to solve all kinds of unsolved crimes, because, believe me, these folks who are our guests right now in corrections did not commit just one crime. We have the ability now to safeguard our communities by doing this testing now on all the prisoners. However, the federal government is resisting this. For what reason, we do not know.

COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I have a question for the Minister of Education. Minister, today we have another example of your failure and the failure of your Common Sense Revolution. Your cuts are hurting kids in more ways than one. Boy Scouts and Girl Guides across this province won't be able to pay the $100,000 that schools must charge for the use of their schools, thanks to your funding formula, which is cutting the heart out of our communities. Since you have centralized education financing, boards of education have lost the flexibility to be able to respond to community needs. Boards cannot help Boy Scouts and Girl Guides any longer. Will you?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): I think using school facilities for many community activities is certainly an appropriate use of those facilities. School boards make policies about what they're going to charge for the use of those facilities. For example, the Toronto board, as I understand it, has special rates for groups like Boy Scouts and Girl Guides. It's $5.70 an hour, as I understand it. They may well be working with the city to change that policy, but school boards have always had the responsibility for determining that policy. I certainly expect them to make appropriate judgments based on what they believe is appropriate for their community.

Mr Marchese: Minister, we know this information. The boards have been subsidizing Boy Scouts and Girl Guides for a long time. They've given them reduced rates for a long time. You know that boards have been reduced to fundraising in so many ways. School councils are fundraising until they drop. A school in Windsor is selling bricks to stay open. You have countless dollars, billions of dollars, to give away to corporations as tax cuts, yet you have squeezed boards till they're dry. They have no more money. They're saying they cannot any longer subsidize the Boy Scouts and the Girl Guides.

So I say to you that you are directly responsible, because of your funding formula, for causing the damage that this will do to the work that is done by the Boy Scouts and the Girl Guides. You are directly responsible for that, and I am asking you, are you going to be able to help? Boards are no longer able to do that, after you've squeezed them dry. Are you going to be there for them, Minister?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The Toronto board, as I understand it, does provide a lower rate for Girl Guides and Boy Scouts. As I said, it works out to about $5.70 an hour for the use of a school gym, which I would anticipate is much below the cost that the board would incur in order to do that worthwhile opportunity. I would certainly congratulate school boards that do have that kind of flexible structure for groups that they believe are helping their students.

Secondly, I should remind the honourable member, since he keeps forgetting, that the tax reductions that we brought in in this province are predominantly benefiting those in the lower- and middle-income groups. As a matter of fact, there are lower-income folks who no longer pay any Ontario income tax because of our tax cuts, which is certainly, for a lower-income family, a great benefit to them.

The other issue the honourable member raises-there's a recent report from the education ministers across the country that talks about the fact that parent groups are fundraising across the country. They've done it before; it is not a new thing. It's certainly a pressure that parents are experiencing in all provinces.

Finally, there is indeed more money today out there in our education system than there was when we came into office.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Minister, I want to return to the issue raised a short while ago and I want you to tell me why the Mike Harris government is discriminating between cancer patients living in the north and cancer patients living in the south. Janice Skinner, who was in here just a few moments ago, over the course of the past 14 months has had to contribute $10,000 towards her travel costs and other expenses, but her counterpart living in Toronto has had to contribute zero over the past 14 months.

You tell us there are two different programs. There is just one group of people, Minister, surely you understand that-one group of Ontarians sick with cancer.

Tell us now, because we don't get it over here: How is it that you can countenance discrimination, and you discriminate against people suffering from cancer in the north as opposed to those living in the south?

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): The Leader of the Opposition is right, he just doesn't get it. There is nothing new there. I'll tell him the difference.

There is an 18% increase in funding for the cancer centre in Thunder Bay, a 15% increase in the cancer centre in Sudbury, a new hospital and a new cancer centre going into Thunder Bay, a $100-million investment in a hospital and the cancer centre in Sudbury and a brand new cancer treatment in Sault Ste Marie. The difference is that the Mike Harris government is acting to improve services for northern Ontario patients far beyond anything you even comprehended when you ran for this office last year.

Mr McGuinty: Discrimination is still discrimination, even if you call it something else. This is discrimination, pure and simple, and it's unadulterated. It's there for everybody to see.

You told us that you were coming here to fix the government. You didn't want to be "the government." You were going to be there for the people. Well, here's a people problem. You've got a policy in place that clearly discriminates against people who live in the north. People in the south will not countenance this. People in the north will not countenance this. This is anti-Ontarian. Certainly my party believes that anybody in our province who happens to be stricken with cancer deserves equal quality treatment.

Stop trying to defend the indefensible. Fix this problem. You said you were going to fix the government. Fix this problem and make it right for the people of Ontario who live in the north.

Hon Mr Hudak: I guess in the earlier questions to the Minister of the Environment it was Judge McGuinty, and now it's Dr McGuinty. In fact, a real doctor, Dr Shumak, who is the CEO of Cancer Care Ontario, says, "Cancer Care Ontario's program does not discriminate against anyone." It's true. You may know better, Dr McGuinty, but I'm telling you what I know. As I said, record increases into health care in this province, a new hospital in Thunder Bay and $100 million going to Sudbury.

I want to say-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Minister take his seat, please. Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Hudak: As I said, Dr Shumak, the expert on the issue, says this program does not discriminate against anyone, and that's the fact. I know your vision is just to send patients travelling wherever; that's your vision for health care. Ours is to improve services to northern Ontario patients. That's why we brought in some 300 doctors and specialists, new hospitals, new cancer centres and MRIs. This record is far beyond anything you even comprehended.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. On a recent Tuesday, the member for Niagara Centre introduced a private member's bill that would amend the Ministry of Correctional Services Act to allow victims to attend parole hearings. I was indeed surprised, but heartened, to see that the NDP apparently now believes that the victims of crime should be given a voice in our justice system. Minister of Correctional Services, what is your opinion of this proposed legislation?

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister of Correctional Services): I too was actually quite surprised to see that the member for Niagara Centre has finally agreed with this government's perspective on the rights of victims to participate more actively and fully in the justice system, including whether or not individuals who are sentenced for committing a crime are eligible for parole. I only wish that he was there to support this government when we took the initiative to make sure that parole was indeed considered a privilege to be earned as opposed to a right that was automatically granted.

I wish he was supportive of that when we made that change in 1995. I take from the theme and context of his bill that he and his party now do support that. We have made great strides to make parole something that should be a privilege for individuals who are sentenced to earn as opposed to a right that's automatically granted to them.

Mr Galt: Thank you, Minister, for that response. Certainly it's obvious that this government takes the rights of victims very, very seriously.

I'm now left wondering if the Minister of Correctional Services might just elaborate on some of the steps the Ontario government has taken. As members of this House are aware, public safety has been a prime feature of the Blueprint election platform. There's no question that the Blueprint clearly outlines what steps we will take to ensure that the rights of victims of crime are respected in this province.

Minister, perhaps the Liberals are unaware of our commitments to victims of crime. Can you please enlighten them for me.

Hon Mr Sampson: Not only do the Liberals apparently not believe in it, but they're heckling and joking over there when we talk about the rights of victims in the criminal justice system. They just don't get it and neither do their federal cousins, by the way, who have a federal parole system and a quota system to get people out of jail.

We believe that parole should be something that people earn in this province, and that's what we've done. We've made a lot of strides to make sure that victims are more active in the parole process and more active in the criminal justice system, to make sure their voices are heard. We're prepared to stand up for the rights of victims of crime. The Liberals aren't; we are.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): My question is to the Attorney General. Mr Minister, we all agree that justice delayed is justice denied, but worst of all, when a convicted individual refuses to comply with the remedy ordered, the victim is further victimized but this time by the system.

Could you please tell the people of Ontario what procedures or practices are in place to ensure that convicted individuals comply with tribunal decisions so that victims are not further victimized?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I thank the member opposite for the question. It's unclear to me what the member is asking about-about the obligations of convicted criminals to obey administrative tribunals. If the member can elucidate and perhaps give me some idea of what he's asking about, I'll endeavour to respond.

Mr Curling: I thought a minister would have some sort of procedure in place for when someone has been convicted. But let me make it clearer to you, Mr Minister.

This government specifically promised to beef up the resources of the Ontario Human Rights Commission at the time it shut down the Employment Equity Commission. It is a widely known fact that the Ontario Human Rights Commission lacks the resources and mandate to be effective. This in itself denies justice. Further to that, it also lacks the necessary teeth to enforce its rulings.

We have known repeat offenders who make a mockery of the system by refusing to comply with the board orders. Would you say, Mr Minister, that this is the time to have a total review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, giving it the necessary resources and mandate to do its job? Quite often, whenever the board states its convictions and its ruling, it's completely denied and the individual goes scot-free without complying to those orders. What have you got in place to ensure that when these things have been ordered, there are procedures to make them happen?

Hon Mr Flaherty: I refer it to the Minister of Citizenship.

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. He asked a couple of questions about the Ontario Human Rights Commission and I'd like to say that on a number of different avenues we're very proud of the work that the Ontario Human Rights Commission is doing in the province of Ontario.

When we took office in 1995, there was an incredible backlog at the Ontario Human Rights Commission and people were waiting for a long time to be heard. We've implemented a mediation process that ensures that there is better client service, that people who feel they have a right to be heard in front of the tribunal have the ability to have that happen. Let me tell you that 60% of the complaints filed are resolved, right now, in less than six months.

What happens, in effect, is that people who come before the Human Rights Commission as a result of some concern or something they feel is a wrongdoing are able to be heard very quickly. The Human Rights Commission continues to do that. It continues to ensure that people get the hearings they deserve. They go through the mediation process, and they're also able to go before the board of inquiry. We believe that things are operating well at the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions is over. The member for Essex on a point of order.

VISITORS

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): Several weeks ago, I was privileged to be principal for a day at Gosfield north elementary public school, and I am pleased to say today that I have the principal, Bill Kotevich, with me as an MPP for the day.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Member for Parkdale-High Park on a point of order.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): A point of order relating to the change of business in the House. I had intended to file this with you as a point of privilege tomorrow. However, the changing order of Bill 74 has affected that, so I'd like to provide this to you, Mr Speaker, as supplementary information; that is, the assistant deputy minister of education has already issued directions to school boards as if Bill 74 had already passed. I have in my possession a memo sent on the impact of Bill 74 that clearly states that the bill is already assumed to be passed and the measures have already taken place. I'll provide that to you as supplementary.

The Speaker: I would appreciate that.

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have in my possession petitions literally carrying thousands of signatures. It says:

"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 seek 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 have 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."

That's signed, as I said, by hundreds, if not thousands, of my constituents.

DURHAM COLLEGE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It is my distinct pleasure to be recognized. I am presenting this on behalf of the Lions Club of Newcastle and their recording secretary, Frank Hoar, along with numerous other members of my riding of Durham. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

I sign and present this petition with all the intensity possible.

WATER EXTRACTION

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

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

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

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

I will very happily sign my name to this petition.

FARMLAND

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Canada's class 1 farmland is a nationally important resource that is fast disappearing; and

"Whereas 8,000 acres of Canada's best farmland north and east of Toronto was expropriated in 1973 to be retained as parkland and farmland in perpetuity; and

"Whereas it was the stated intention of this and previous governments to protect this area of the Rouge-Duffin agricultural preserve as parkland and farmland forever; and

"Whereas the Ontario Realty Corp is charged with selling this public land; and

"Whereas this sale is being conducted in a manner that threatens the existing community and the future of farming in the agricultural preserve;

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

"We request that the government of Ontario actively seek implementation of agricultural easements on all the farmland in the Rouge-Duffin agricultural preserve.

"We request that the government of Ontario honour the promise of the Chair of Management Board of Cabinet, specifically that the sale of the farmland will be at prices affordable to the farmers to ensure the continuation of farming in the agricultural preserve."

PESTICIDES

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I have today about 1,200 individual petition sheets from a lot of people from my area of the province. They say:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the following cities in Ontario-Toronto, Waterloo, Ottawa, Kitchener and Cambridge-already have in place restrictive policies for the landscape/cosmetic use of pesticides on publicly owned land; and

"Whereas synthetic chemical pesticides and fertilizers now routinely used for landscape/cosmetic use are harmful to human health and the environment; and

"Whereas these products are unnecessary because sustainable, healthy and effective lawn care alternatives are available;

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

"That the province of Ontario phase out the landscape/cosmetic use of synthetic chemical pesticides on both public and privately owned land before the year 2001 and immediately develop and implement a comprehensive public education program to demonstrate the efficiency of sustainable lawn and garden maintenance practices."

I attach my name to this petition as well.

DURHAM COLLEGE

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): It is my honour to present a petition on behalf of a fellow Lion, Frank Hoar, secretary of the Lions Club of Newcastle.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I have a petition 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 have signatures of another 150 concerned constituents to add to the thousands of constituents who have forwarded this petition to the Legislature in the past. I affix my signature in full agreement with their concerns.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Last Friday, I met in my constituency with members of the land use committee looking after issues on the Oak Ridges moraine. Minister Flaherty and Minister Ecker were with me as well at a well-received meeting, so on their behalf I'm reading a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

"That the government of Ontario will:

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

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

"Provide a policy statement to enshrine its position."

I am pleased to sign and endorse this petition.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): "Whereas the government of Ontario has stated its intention to close the Monteith Correctional Centre; and

"Whereas this closure will result in the loss of 90 jobs in Iroquois Falls and the surrounding area; and

"Whereas this job loss will be devastating to the community,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We call upon the government of Ontario to cease plans to close the Monteith Correctional Centre and continue to publicly operate this facility."

DURHAM COLLEGE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I appreciate being able to read a number of these because my constituents continue to send these petitions. This one is from the Newcastle Lions Club and I present it on their behalf. I might mention the member for Northumberland is a past district governor of Lions.

To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we request the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support Durham College in their bid for university status;"-I might add I do as well-"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

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

I sign and support this petition on their behalf.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): "To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the Oak Ridges moraine is the rain barrel of southern Ontario and the headwaters for over 65 rivers and streams, from Cobourg to Caledon; and

"Whereas the Oak Ridges moraine is threatened by uncontrolled development that is destroying precious natural wetlands, forests, groundwater and wildlife; and

"Whereas 465 world-renowned scientists, local residents and naturalists all support an immediate development freeze and the implementation of a comprehensive protection plan for the moraine; and

"Whereas the province has the power to coordinate planning over a wide area of nine regions and 26 municipalities and the province must act quickly; and

"Whereas every month new developments are being approved that will destroy the environmental integrity of the moraine;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the provincial government immediately freeze development on the Oak Ridges moraine and pass Bill 12, the Oak Ridges Moraine Protection and Preservation Act, so that there will be a comprehensive plan to protect and preserve the moraine for future generations."

I am in full agreement and have affixed my signature hereto.

KARLA HOMOLKA

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): I'd like to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

"That the government of Ontario will:

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

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

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

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

I am pleased to put my name on this as well.

DELAYED START OF SCHOOL

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Further petitions? The Chair recognizes the member for Durham.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I'm sorry, I overlooked the proper rotation. At this point I would recognize the member for Hamilton West.

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [Children]): For the time being.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): No, for quite a while, Margaret, actually. I announced it today. I'm staying here. I would miss you.

Applause.

Mr Christopherson: Thank you.

Hon Mrs Marland: I would miss you too, David.

Mr Christopherson: That's sweet, Margaret, really.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): Break it up, you two.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

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

"Whereas this year 130,000 Canadians will contract cancer and there are at minimum 17 funerals every day for Canadian workers who died from cancer caused by workplace exposure to cancer-causing substances known as carcinogens;

"Whereas the World Health Organization estimates that 80% of all cancers have environmental causes and the International Labour Organization estimates that one million workers globally have cancer because of exposure at work to carcinogens;

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

"Whereas very few health organizations study the link between occupations and cancer, even though more study of this link is an important step to defeating this dreadful disease;

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

"That it become a legal requirement that occupational history be recorded on a standard form when a patient presents at a physician for diagnosis or treatment of cancer and that the diagnosis and occupational history be forwarded to a central cancer registry for analysis as to the link between cancer and occupation."

I continue to support these petitions by adding my name.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ELECTRONIC COMMERCE ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LE COMMERCE ÉLECTRONIQUE

Mr Flaherty moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 88,

An Act to promote the use of information technology in commercial and other transactions by resolving legal uncertainties and removing statutory barriers that affect electronic communication / Projet de loi 88, Loi visant à promouvoir l'utilisation des technologies de l'information dans les opérations commerciales et autres en éliminant les incertitudes juridiques et les obstacles législatifs qui ont une incidence sur les communications électroniques.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Would the Attorney General like to start off debate?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I propose to share my time with the members for Etobicoke North, Northumberland and Durham.

Over the past five years, Ontario has experienced tremendous economic growth. Ontario's economic turnaround didn't happen by accident. It was the result of hard work by the people of the province as well as key initiatives that arose from strong and focused leadership.

I was reminded of the relationship between success and work at the commencement ceremony at Trafalgar Castle School in Whitby last Saturday morning, where the valedictorian said, "The only place success comes before work is in the dictionary." Our government believes we must continue to work to develop initiatives that keep our economy competitive, growing and strong. That's why we have introduced the Electronic Commerce Act. If passed, the act would boost the online growth of Ontario's businesses by cutting red tape and removing outdated legal barriers to e-commerce.

This government places a high level of importance on the development of e-commerce in Ontario and is committed to seeing Ontario play a leading role in the development of the on-line economy across Canada. Terms like "dot.com," "e-mail" and "downloading" are now part of our everyday language. More and more, the people of Ontario are going on-line to conduct business, to send an e-mail or to shop. There is no doubt that the World Wide Web is becoming the communications hub for individuals and businesses.

Here in Ontario we want to bring our laws in line with those technological advances to encourage investment and establish consumer confidence. Currently in Ontario we still use the old law of contracts, based on ink and paper arrangements, an old law that doesn't recognize electronic contracts and therefore inhibits on-line business growth.

If passed, the Electronic Commerce Act would make it clear that electronic contracts, documents and signatures can have the same legal force and effect as contracts, documents and signatures on paper. Ontario's economic success depends on our ability to make e-commerce run as smoothly as possible. E-commerce is the new way of doing business, and many forward-thinking companies have already recognized the huge potential of e-business and are creating exciting new ways to generate commercial success.

Electronic publications, on-line financial services, virtual auctions and virtual shopping are just a few of the emerging trends that are revolutionizing many industries. For example, companies like Procter and Gamble and several automobile suppliers have created Internet buying systems. These systems provide a higher level of convenience and comprehensiveness for business partners and consumers.

What has hindered the rapid growth of these buying systems is the uncertainty about the law that governs on-line business. If passed, our bill would guarantee that a contract in electronic form would be legal and enforceable.

This bill would also help promote people's confidence in e-business. People need to have confidence in the validity of their electronic transactions.

As well, if passed, our bill would set up rules for automated transactions and for correcting mistakes made on a computer. For example, when shopping on-line, the proposed act would allow consumers to cancel a mistaken order unless the merchant provided a way for the consumer to confirm their order before it is processed. This should encourage merchants to design Web sites with a confirming "Are you sure?" message. This would serve as a double-check when someone is making a purchase or signing a contract on-line. We recognize the future of e-commerce will depend on consumer confidence and trust. This kind of rule will help strengthen that confidence.

We also recognize that the world of e-business has no borders and that the laws that govern e-business should also be borderless. In fact, this bill is based on an international model developed by the United Nations. That means the Ontario law, if passed, will be consistent with e-laws around the world. The UN model has influenced legislation in the United States and many of Ontario's other trading partners. It also served as the model for the national Uniform Electronic Commerce Act.

Most, if not all, Canadian provinces will be basing their own provincial statutes on the uniform act that is the foundation of our bill. I'm pleased to note that Ontario is one of the first provinces to be moving forward with an e-business bill, along with Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

Since I introduced the proposed Electronic Commerce Act last week, I've heard from several business leaders who are reacting positively to our government's understanding of the business climate. John Wetmore for one, who is the president and CEO of IBM Canada Ltd, is encouraged by this bill and our recognition that a universal law is needed for e-commerce. For companies like IBM Canada, this bill is vital for positioning Canadian companies as world business leaders. Without this bill, Ontario would most certainly be left behind.

The Internet has helped companies and people transcend geographic boundaries. This bill would do the same. This bill would help small start-up enterprises compete on an international stage. These companies can use the Internet to quickly enter the marketplace by offering competitive products with substantially reduced overhead costs. What is holding some small companies back from plunging into e-business is that there is no law in place that clearly states electronic business transactions are legally valid. This bill would remove the outdated legal barriers that have restricted e-business growth and would help unleash new opportunities for creative start-up companies.

The future growth of e-commerce in Ontario and Canada depends on business confidence and consumer trust. A recent survey of on-line Canadian shoppers finds they are now buying more products and services from Canadian Web sites rather than from American sources. This is encouraging, and we believe this bill would strengthen this trend by providing a new level of consumer confidence in their on-line transactions with Ontario-based companies.

Protecting one's privacy on-line is a primary concern for everyone in Ontario. It is a concern that this government takes very seriously. The people of Ontario want to be able to conduct e-business secure in the knowledge that their personal information isn't being misused. They want to have the protection of the law, and we understand this. The laws in Canada that already exist to protect individual privacy are applicable to on-line transactions as well as off-line transactions.

In Ontario, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations is currently reviewing and will be addressing the privacy issue in an Ontario context. That is not to say there are not privacy provisions in this proposed bill; indeed there are.

We have had extensive discussions with staff of the Information and Privacy Commission. A number of provisions were incorporated in the proposed bill at the suggestion of the Information and Privacy Commission to ensure it would not weaken existing privacy protections. For example, the bill does not override privacy and access-to-information statutes. Consumers may also be concerned about the potential for Internet-based fraud or theft. The proposed Electronic Commerce Act does not change or affect existing laws that protect people from fraud or theft.

Electronic commerce is not inherently more risky or more threatened by fraud than paper commerce. I know some people may not feel comfortable conducting their business electronically, however, and this bill would not force people to do so. It would simply provide those who wish to do their business electronically with the assurance that their transactions are legally binding.

The same can be said for businesses. We're not forcing businesses to conduct their business on-line, but the reality is that businesses must adapt to market conditions. The market in Ontario, Canada and around the world is moving towards electronic commerce.

Our proposed Electronic Commerce Act would help ensure the survival of forward-looking businesses by demonstrating to other countries that Ontario has the foresight to create legislation that validates electronic documents and signatures.

Telegraph signals were introduced in the 1800s; the telephone came later in that same century. Both were used to help businesses enter into contracts. Today, a growing number of contracts are sealed electronically. It only makes sense that in the 21st century Ontario should have a law that says you can do business on the Internet the same way you can on paper.

By passing this legislation, this province would be inviting even more new investment in Ontario. This legislation recognizes that electronic commerce is a real and effective way of doing business now and in the future in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): I think today is very historic in marking how the Ontario Legislature, as it enters I guess the sixth month of the 21st century, is witnessing the passage, hopefully in the next few days, of Bill 88, the Electronic Commerce Act. I'm certainly glad to join in some remarks regarding what this particular bill means in terms of business for the next number of decades. In my estimation, it's going to have an enormous amount of meaning, substance and impact on how business and a lot of other activities are covered in the province of Ontario and throughout Canada.

I must say that in the last five years the Internet has probably penetrated nearly 50% of Canadian households-some provinces much higher. I think Alberta is the leader; Ontario is probably second. Saskatchewan is claiming that it introduced the first e-commerce bill-which it had to withdraw for privacy considerations, from what I can gather from sources out on the prairies. Regardless of that, the Internet took five years; it took about 25 years for television to penetrate. In terms of penetration, we mean the number of homes that were using television a number of ways.

It probably took another 75 years for electricity to be utilized by businesses, residences, hospitals and the public sector when you look at it in terms of comparison. The point here is that the speed of change, the rapidity of that change, has telescoped down so quickly, which is why it is so absolutely crucial and necessary to have this e-commerce bill introduced and passed before we rise at the end of this month or sooner, depending on what happens. I guess you never know what might come forth from the other side.

I'd like to add that the Internet and the advancement of technology holds out enormous potential. It allows people, businesses, organizations around the world to communicate, share information, make transactions instantly. This has led to some very startling changes. In the world of medicine, for example, we can now have collaboration to develop life-saving cures. We can have police departments across borders working together to catch criminals. We can have businesses and consumers around the world gaining the opportunity for prosperity as well as greater choice and service.

From a cost perspective, the cost of transferring one terabyte of data, which is the equivalent of 25,000 CDs, will drop to under US$300 by the year 2003, contrasted to $80,000 for that kind of service and capacity in 1998. These are a few examples of how the Internet is impacting our lives and how technology is advancing rapidly daily.

Over a quarter billion people access the Internet today and use it to conduct business, purchase goods, communicate and interact with governments around the world. For example, the number of Internet users in China reached 12 million people last weekend. More than 25 million children in the US are on-line. That's three times the number of children who were on-line in 1997.

We must ensure that the tools are in place for on-line commerce to develop to its enormous promise. Unfortunately, our existing laws regarding legal and binding relationships, including contracts, were developed for an older system, for a paper-based world, and whether we like it or not, that system is fast becoming a way of the past.

The requirement for a paper trail has been so fundamental in our society that a justice department review of federal legislation found that of more than 600 federal statutes, 300 made references to "obtaining or sending information in a way that appeared limited