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

June 14, 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-14 vol. A (PDF)

L072A - Wed 14 Jun 2000 / Mer 14 jun 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TENANT PROTECTION

RCMP MUSICAL RIDE

HIGHWAY 69

JUNIOR FIRE DEPARTMENT PROGRAM

VISITOR

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

CONNAUGHT STUDENT BIOTECHNOLOGY EXHIBITION

EDUCATION ISSUES

VIOLENT CRIME

ANNUAL REPORT, INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES REPORT

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR THE PREMIER ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LE CODE DE CONDUITE POUR LE PREMIER MINISTRE

PRIVACY ENFORCEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT (INFORMATION AND PRIVACY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LE RESPECT DE LA VIE PRIVÉE ET SUR L'OBLIGATION DE RENDRE DES COMPTES À CET ÉGARD (MODIFICATION DE LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ACCÈS À L'INFORMATION ET LA PROTECTION DE LA VIE PRIVÉ

E) STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

VEHICLE BRANDING LEGISLATION

DEFERRED VOTES

SAFE SCHOOLS ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ DANS LES ÉCOLES

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

WATER QUALITY

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

WATER QUALITY

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

POVERTY

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

RETIREMENT HOMES

SAFETY-KLEEN SITE

AIRLINE INDUSTRY

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

SPORTS AND RECREATION FUNDING

COST OF ELECTRICAL POWER

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

PETITIONS

PROSTATE CANCER

WATER QUALITY

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

KARLA HOMOLKA

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

ALGONQUIN PARK WOLVES

SCHOOL CLOSURES

DELAYED START OF SCHOOL

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

KARLA HOMOLKA

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WANT OF CONFIDENCE MOTION

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TENANT PROTECTION

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): This weekend, Saturday, June 17, marks a very ominous anniversary for Ontario's tenants. It was two years ago that the so-called Tenant Protection Act came into force in this province.

This act was brought in with much fanfare, but let me tell members of this House what it has really meant for Ontario's tenants:

Evictions are up by 15%, and according to a recent study of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, it has turned into little more than an eviction machine for landlords. While eviction orders are being churned out by the dozen, however, tenant concerns are being sent to the back of the line. Tenants' rights have significantly eroded under the act, although Minister Clement refuses to acknowledge all of the evidence.

Vacancy rates are declining at an unprecedented rate and the availability of affordable rental accommodation is at an all-time low. One in four Ontario tenants are vulnerable to becoming homeless because they spend over half of their household income on rent, and existing tenants are virtually prisoners in their own home.

Former Minister Al Leach declared at the time that within two years of this act coming into force, there would be 10,000 new rental accommodation units created here in Ontario. Well, here we are, two years later, and only a handful have been created.

In typical Harris government fashion, Minister Clement has tried to blame developers, municipalities, even tenants themselves, for this government's and his own failings. When will the Harris government wake up and realize the horrific impact that their actions have had on tenants in Ontario?

I will be joining tenants from across Toronto this Saturday here on the lawns at Queen's Park to mourn the proclamation of this act. I hope that this rally and the many other petitions, protests, letters and phone calls that the minister receives will be a signal that this act requires some real and meaningful changes. After a disastrous two years, tenants deserve nothing less.

RCMP MUSICAL RIDE

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I am pleased to inform the members of this House about a must-see event in the prosperous riding of Cambridge, North Dumfries and South Kitchener.

On August 13, 2000, Cambridge will proudly host the popular RCMP Musical Ride. This is a Canadian spectacle. I encourage my colleagues and friends to take time out and enjoy the festivities of music, demonstrations and entertainment.

I would personally like to acknowledge the committee and dedicated volunteers who have been working for over three years to present this great show to our community. This is all in celebration of the millennium. Leadership of this remarkable event is being provided by Chairperson John Housser, who was awarded the Cambridge Tourism Ambassador of the Year award, and Vice-Chair Paul Larocque, who received the Tourism Industry Booster of the Year award. Both individuals, and their committee, have created unique and memorable partnerships between corporations, government and the community.

The musical ride is being referred to as "A Coming Together Event." This is a perfect opportunity for children, family and friends to enjoy a safe and fun day while taking advantage of the many attractions and shopping facilities in Cambridge.

For tickets and more information to the RCMP Musical Ride, go to the Web site, www.cambridgetourism.com.

HIGHWAY 69

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Today I'm renewing my call to four-lane Highway 69 from Sudbury to Parry Sound.

In 1996, 12,000 Sudburians filled out postcards that said, "Highway 69, worth the investment." To date, all they've received is lip service.

Last week I sent an open letter to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines demanding answers. To date, no response, but let's see what's happened over the course of the last three years: 1997, 1998 and 1999 saw 22 fatalities along that stretch of highway between Sudbury and Parry Sound-22 lives snuffed out because this government will not accept the responsibility that they have to ensure that my residents have a safe highway between Sudbury and Parry Sound.

How many more people have to die before this government understands it has a responsibility to the people in northern Ontario?

Let's look at the 40-mile stretch from Sudbury to Parry Sound. This year alone, there have been 26 accidents and 14 people injured. Broken bones, lives in ruin, incredible carnage-all because this government refuses to act. For safety reasons, for political reasons or for whatever other reasons, this government will not accept the responsibility.

Today, I demand on behalf of my constituents that you begin four-laning Highway 69 from Sudbury immediately.

JUNIOR FIRE DEPARTMENT PROGRAM

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm pleased to rise today and advise the Legislature that the junior fire department program in my riding of Durham is well underway. Young people aged 11 to 12 from the municipality of Clarington get the opportunity to learn basic first aid, CPR, tying ropes and knots, proper fire extinguisher use and a number of other safety-related items.

Through the month of August, 20 new children will each receive, on a weekly basis, a fun, safety-oriented training program with valuable hands-on experience from the Clarington Fire Department. Each week wraps up with a skill-related competition, demonstrations for parents and, of course, graduation certificates.

I commend the program coordinators for their active involvement with the youth of our community, especially the program supervisor, Divisional Chief Gord Weir, as well as Fire Prevention Officer Randy Reinert.

The program is also supported by outside organizations such as Ontario Power Generation, Durham Regional Police Services, the fire investigator from the office of the fire marshal, the RCMP, Bowmanville ambulance services, and many citizens at large; for instance, the Darlington generating station.

I'd like to thank the organizers for providing the safety and learning demonstration for our youth in the community.

VISITOR

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'd also like to take this last couple of moments to welcome to the Legislature a very good friend of mine, Wayne Dawson from the Canadian Portland Cement Association, who's in the visitors' gallery today.

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I rise today to talk about the underfunding of services for people with developmental disabilities. I'll be sending the Minister of Community and Social Services, very shortly, hundreds of postcards which confirm this fact. Each of this is signed and says the following:

"Citizens with physical and mental disabilities need care and support. That takes resources. Please act to improve our clients' quality of life.

"Serve more than their basic needs.

"Increase the staffing ratios.

"Make more services available to eliminate waiting lists.

"Address the evolving needs of clients.

"Deal with staff turnover and burnout.

"Staff and families" in this province "are stretched to the breaking point. The needs a real. Please act now."

Everyone recognizes that the developmental services sector is chronically underfunded and has been for years. The workers in the dozens of agencies that serve the mentally and physically disabled are deeply concerned that they can do little more than serve their clients' basic needs. The resources that are needed to do more just do not exist.

The government recently announced some additional funding for developmental services. This is only a start; much more needs to be done.

I would like to join my voice to the many others being raised in Ontario and ask that the minister provide the necessary funding to move developmental services beyond the basics. People with developmental disabilities may not in all cases be taxpayers but they are in all cases citizens. They deserve better.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): It's been almost six months since the Harris government rammed through legislation to force restructuring in my community. At the time Bill 25 was introduced, the Minister of Municipal Affairs would not say who would pay the transition costs associated with this forced amalgamation. He told the Sudbury media, "The government is still deliberating on the best way to approach these costs." Six months later, apparently these deliberations still continue.

Compare this to the Harris government's approach to the city of Toronto amalgamation. On June 5, 1998, the former Minister of Municipal Affairs announced a $100-million interest-free loan for the city for 1998, and another $100-million interest-free loan would be provided if requested by Toronto in 1999. Further, a grant of $50 million was provided to restructure transportation and communication costs. The city of Toronto will begin to repay this $200-million loan this fiscal year.

Secondly, under

section 27 of Bill 25, the regional municipality of Sudbury is forced to pick up all the costs associated with the transition team, including salaries, expenses, the hiring of experts and the fees to use any facilities. Compare that to the memorandum of understanding signed by the Harris government with the city of Toronto in August 1997. The Harris government agreed to pick up all the costs associated with the transition team and financial advisory group, and that cost in the end was $3.8 million.

This is discrimination too. It's no different from the discrimination this government practises against northern cancer patients.

CONNAUGHT STUDENT BIOTECHNOLOGY EXHIBITION

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): On May 10, St Elizabeth Catholic high school in Thornhill was declared the first-place winner in the Connaught Student Biotechnology Exhibition. The students who won the competition are Joy Lero, Rosanna Dolcetti, Bernadette Ilagan and Valerie Tam. These students, inspired and coached by Sydney Smith, their biology teacher, competed against 60 other projects which had been submitted for competition. This event is particularly significant because it centred around the discovery that genistein, a biochemical product of soybeans, can kill breast cancer cells.

The students realized that they were on to something several months ago when they read a graph that showed a correlation between soy consumption and decreased incidence of breast cancer. With the support and encouragement of Dr Evelyn Voura, a scientist with the world-renowned Ontario Cancer Institute, the students conducted their research at the institute after school and on weekends. The implications of this research and the combined efforts of these students, their teacher Sydney Smith and Dr Voura are particularly significant when one considers that according to the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation, an estimated 5,500 women throughout Canada died from the disease in 1999.

It is my privilege to present Rosanna Dolcetti, Joy Lero, Bernadette Ilagan, Valerie Tam, their teacher Sydney Smith and Patrick Black, trustee for the York Catholic District School Board. I would ask you to join me in congratulating all of them for their outstanding achievement.

EDUCATION ISSUES

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I'd like to take this opportunity to recognize the efforts of one of the Elgin county trustees to the Thames Valley District School Board, Cynthia Nurse. Out of a sense of total frustration with the Harris government and their refusal to hold meaningful consultation on Bill 74, Ms Nurse designed a Web site seeking input from the citizens of Ontario. The results have been overwhelming. Less than one half of 1% agree with your government's attack on teachers, the education system and democracy in this province. This seriously casts doubt on the numbers we have been hearing from the government side of the House.

One of the comments states: "Bill 74 is an insult.... I voted Tory ... I regret this and apologize to the teachers of Ontario for my mistake.... For the first time in my life, I'm ashamed to be a Conservative."

I'd also like to draw to the attention of the Legislature a letter sent to the Minister of Education last week by the Thames Valley District School Board. In regards to Bill 74, the Thames Valley District School Board writes to the Minister of Education: "[T]he government has created an environment that will further demoralize the educators. This will not improve the quality of education. ...[T]he proposed legislation ... endangers the principles of democracy." In reference to forcing school board compliance they say it "suspends the rights of natural justice ... an affront to the democratic process."

It is incumbent on every member of this Legislature to heed these warning bells that are ringing across the province.

VIOLENT CRIME

Mr David Young (Willowdale): Not long ago, I stood in this House and spoke about a very disturbing trend. The increase of crime across the province, and particularly violent crime, is of great concern to my constituents and undoubtedly to all the residents of this province.

At the time I last spoke about this issue, a 13-year-old boy had been shot in the head during a gun battle between two groups of youths. Fortunately, he survived. Only a week before that incident, a stray bullet passed through an empty crib during a gunfight in which 26-and I say it again, 26-rounds were fired indiscriminately. Two days ago, a stray bullet hit a six-year-old boy playing in a park in north Toronto. The tragic irony of this is that the park in question is dedicated to Breanna Davy, a three-year-old who was shot dead almost exactly one year ago.

This has to stop. While I am aware of the fact that criminal law is within the federal purview, within their jurisdiction, we as elected representatives within this Legislature must take action. I have with me today a petition that has been circulating throughout my riding over the past short while. I am inviting the other members of this Legislative Assembly to sign this petition to add their name to the plea we make to the Minister of Justice, the Honourable Anne McLellan, to amend the Criminal Code to ensure that there are meaningful penalties for those who use firearms in the commission of offences.

ANNUAL REPORT, INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that I have laid upon the table the 1999 annual report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.

INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES REPORT

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I also beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the individual members' expenditures for the fiscal year 1999-2000.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on regulations and private bills and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr21,

An Act to revive 1264030 Ontario Inc.

Bill Pr24,

An Act respecting Huron University College.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

Mr Turnbull moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 91,

An Act to require the mandatory reporting of severely damaged vehicles to counter motor vehicle fraud and theft / Projet de loi 91, Loi exigeant la déclaration obligatoire des véhicules gravement endommagés afin de lutter contre la fraude et le vol des véhicules automobiles.

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

The minister for a short statement.

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): I will be making a ministerial statement.

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR THE PREMIER ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LE CODE DE CONDUITE POUR LE PREMIER MINISTRE

Mr Marchese moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 92,

An Act to establish a Code of Conduct for the Premier of Ontario with respect to the Legislative Assembly / Projet de loi 92, Loi visant à établir un code de conduite pour le premier ministre de l'Ontario à l'égard de l'Assemblée législative.

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

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1350 to 1355.

The Speaker: Would the members kindly take their seats.

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

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

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

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 39; the nays are 0.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

The member for a short statement.

Interjections.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I didn't hear you, Speaker, there were so many people talking around me.

Interjections.

Mr Marchese: Please, don't you want to listen to the explanation? This bill would make Ontario's Premier subject to the same code of conduct that the Conservative government is demanding of students in Bill 81 and would curtail insults, personal attacks and damaging practices that are now routine with Mike Harris in the Legislature.

The Speaker: Introduction of bills?

Mr Marchese: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to go to second reading on this bill.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I heard a no.

PRIVACY ENFORCEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT (INFORMATION AND PRIVACY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LE RESPECT DE LA VIE PRIVÉE ET SUR L'OBLIGATION DE RENDRE DES COMPTES À CET ÉGARD (MODIFICATION DE LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ACCÈS À L'INFORMATION ET LA PROTECTION DE LA VIE PRIVÉ

E) Mr Christopherson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 93,

An Act to enhance privacy enforcement and accountability by amending the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act with respect to the Commissioner's powers / Projet de loi 93, Loi visant à accroître le respect de la vie privée et l'obligation de rendre des comptes à cet égard en modifiant la

Loi sur l'accès à l'information et la protection de la vie privée et la

Loi sur l'accès à l'information municipale et la protection de la vie privée en ce qui concerne les pouvoirs du commissaire.

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

The member for Hamilton West for a short statement.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): The bill I've tabled today would give the powers to the privacy commissioner that she sought in her report, where she outlined the obstruction she received at the hands of this government while she searched the Province of Ontario Savings Office issue. You will know, Speaker, that you found a case of prima facie contempt in that regard.

The government claims they want to give the commissioner the powers. The commissioner is concerned that this review that's currently underway could take years and that we'll never really get back to the crucial issues, the really important issues that remain in that investigation. My bill would give the commissioner the powers she sought and would allow her to complete the investigation and get answers to the questions she raises in that very dramatic report she tabled with this House.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

VEHICLE BRANDING LEGISLATION

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): Today I have introduced legislation that, if passed, will amend the Highway Traffic Act to improve customer protection against auto theft and vehicle fraud in Ontario.

Each year tens of thousands of vehicles are written off in Ontario by insurance companies. Many of these vehicles find their way back on to Ontario roads through black market operations.

Clearly, auto fraud and theft impact everyone, both in terms of road safety and higher insurance premiums. The amendments I'm introducing will require the reporting-or branding-of severely damaged vehicles. Branding involves putting vehicle status information on registration documents and other information products, including vehicle abstracts and used vehicle information packages.

Vehicles that are written off and branded as irreparable or salvage will not be licensed for Ontario roads. Vehicles that are damaged beyond repair will not be allowed to return to our roadways. Vehicles that can be rebuilt to their original structural integrity will only be allowed back on our roads after they meet prescribed requirements and are re-inspected. These measures are built on the existing stolen and salvage vehicle program introduced in 1998 to deter automobile registration fraud and vehicle theft in this province.

The Ontario Crime Control Commission has indicated that mandatory branding is an effective tool against auto theft and fraud. There is also widespread commitment and support from the insurance industry under the existing voluntary program. All interested parties have told me that for this program to be truly effective in promoting road safety and consumer protection, it must be mandatory. In addition to the insurance industry, we have worked with many stakeholders, including the enforcement community, the collision repair industry, the vehicle sales industry and auto recyclers. All are highly supportive of this program.

I would also like to thank the members for Thunder Bay-Superior North and Timmins-James Bay for their support of this legislation. I hope we can work together on future initiatives that will further crack down on crime in our communities.

This legislation, if agreed upon by the Legislature, will allow further development of regulations that will give effect to this program. Our government has made a commitment to introduce tough measures that will tackle crime and build safer communities for our families. This is another positive initiative introduced by our government that supports law enforcement officials in their fight against crime. We are confident that the mandatory reporting of severely damaged vehicles will promote road user safety and provide greater protection for consumers in Ontario.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I'm glad to have an opportunity to respond to the minister's statement. I must say off the top that the Liberal caucus supports this legislation. It's something we have been calling for for some time. Many of my colleagues have written the minister. There's quite a history with this particular issue. The mandatory branding of vehicles will make a real difference; there's no question about it.

If I may say in passing, though, it does seem rather strange that while the government is keen to follow through on this legislation which makes it mandatory to brand vehicles, they're not as keen to make mandatory the reporting of unsafe water in our province. One would think they would treat that as being as much of a priority.

This is a bill that was tried on a voluntary basis two years ago. It was perhaps well intentioned but it was destined not to work and did not work. The government introduced legislation similar to this back in April 1999, before the election was called, and I think knew full well it would not pass. One of our regrets is that this was not brought forward this past fall. There seemed to be no reason to have any further delay because it is something that needs to be done. We need to protect consumers and we certainly need to protect the used car dealers and others who were put in a bad position about this.

Our caucus will support this. I just hope there's an oppor tunity to have a full debate before the Legislature rises before the session ends in June.

Having said all that, that we support it, I want to use this opportunity-it's so rare for the minister to get up and make a statement in the House, let alone bring forward stuff. There was some disappointment that he did not bring up some of the other issues that we consider pretty important, such as the sale of Highway 407, one of the greatest cash grabs in Canadian history, a real scam, one that has absolutely devastated drivers, across the GTA in particular, one that really is forcing motorists into 99 years of tolls, one that basically allows them to act as a Cadillac collection agency.

The issue is still a secret deal that this government will not reveal to the public. It would have been nice if the minister had stood up today and said he was going to release the details on the 407. In 1994 the minister himself spoke about the fact that it should be a public issue. That's one thing we're disappointed about, and we hope the minister will stand up and make the details of the 407 scam deal available to the people of this province.

Another issue that's really important is that driver's licence information, personal information, is being sold right now to 570 companies in this province, which we think the minister needs to deal with. The privacy commissioner, Ms Cavoukian, has made reference to it. This is banned in the United States and in many other provinces, and it's banned because it's dangerous. That is something the minister needs to do something about.

There are certain circumstances under which it's necessary to have access to that information, but I'll tell you, Minister, when you've got 51 private investigation firms getting this information, we want to know how much revenue you're getting from that. We want you to really protect people. This is about public safety as well.

There are so many other issues that I wish I had more time. The condition of our roads in this province: 56% of our roads are in absolute disrepair. The auditor has told us that. What does this government do? They download thousands of kilometres to municipalities. They give them a little chunk of change and then say, "You look after them." It's unbelievable. They download it and then what do they do? They privatize all the road maintenance in this province; they privatized every bit of it. Not only is privatization going to cost taxpayers a lot more money in this province, it's costing lives. We know that.

The auditor has told you that as well, sir. You should listen to this. The privatization of road maintenance is costing more money and it's costing lives.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): What about GO Transit?

Mr Gravelle: That's an issue I will try and get to, and that is the government's absolute lack of vision.

Let me make one more point. We are very concerned about the increase in truck traffic in this province. We are very concerned about the increase in hours of service that drivers are allowed to drive in this province. Negotiations are going on right now between your government and the federal government. I'll tell you something: This needs to be done in public. One of the proposals on the table will allow drivers to drive a longer amount of time in a given day. Minister, I think you need to recognize we should have public consultations. I came up with that last week, and I hope you will.

Speaking to my colleague from St Catharines, there is the lack of vision. We have air pollution; we have congestion and gridlock in this province. We need public transit to be supported. What does this government do? They remove themselves and download public transit to the municipalities, which is a disgrace.

If you have any vision for the future at all, you'll recognize that we need to support public transit in this province. You're not doing that. It would be nice to have you recognize that municipalities cannot be left alone on this. If you really want the province to function as it should, bring back public transit supported by the province of Ontario. You can do it now. That's all I have to say.

Applause.

Mr Bradley: The Speaker is standing now.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): That actually worked. The member for Timmins-James Bay.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): After that, I wonder what would happen if the minister really did come in with bad news. My Lord, that was quite the statement.

I don't want to take up five minutes and go into the litany of the issues of this government on transportation. Simply put, the government is coming forward with a piece of legislation that we're prepared to support. We think it is important as a protection for consumers. I think the minister covered it well in his statement, and what we're trying to do here is to take out of circulation those vehicles that are deemed irreparable to make sure that when people decide to do this on the side, rebuild cars and resell them, their cars don't end up in the hands of consumers, cars that quite frankly shouldn't be there.

I see this as a safety issue. It's something that our caucus, the NDP, are prepared to support. We're prepared to give this quick passage.

However, I have to say something. I was prepared to stop at this point, but two things happened in this statement. One is that unfortunately the Minister of Transportation tried to tie this into a law-and-order issue. Talk about the wrong time to be doing such a thing. I just have to say, Minister-and I'm not going to go the whole five minutes-how can you try to tie this to law and order when you're the government that has now been in a position where we have less police on the beat than we had back in 1994?

We have fewer cops out doing the work, patrolling our neighbourhoods, making our communities safer than there were prior to 1994. This government, to try to tie this to law and order, I think makes it a stretch.

Then I read with interest, as many members of the assembly did, when we looked at the discussion and comments of Justice Day in regard to the Victims' Bill of Rights. They said that this government talked a good line when it came to giving victims' rights; passed legislation even in this Legislature. But it was toothless, said Justice Day; the bill did nothing, not one iota, to protect victims' rights, and he wondered what the government was all about. Again it's one of those issues where the government likes to talk one issue and speak a good line, but when it comes to delivering, they don't.

So we will support this legislation but, Minister, I warn you: Don't come into this Legislature trying to tie this in as law and order, because it ain't. It's a safety issue, and we shouldn't play with people's safety.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I, with great anticipation, came into the Legislature this afternoon knowing the Minister of Transportation was going to make a statement. I was hopeful that it was going to be a comment on his predecessor's, Mr Clement's, promise that he made just slightly more than a year ago.

During the election campaign of 1999, Mr Clement came to Niagara, campaigning for a former Conservative member of the Legislature, and promised the people of Niagara that the 406 would be four-laned in anticipation of the extension southward into Port Colborne.

I'm hopeful that the member representing Port Colborne has enough clout with his cabinet colleagues to deliver on this commitment to the people of Port Colborne and the very southern tier of Niagara. I was hoping that this minister would have been advised of his predecessor's election promise. The promise wasn't successful in terms of achieving its goal, but a promise is a promise, Minister. A promise made should be kept, don't you think? You promised the four-laning and extension of the 406 down to my colleague Mr Hudak's riding.

Mr Hudak may not want to speak out on behalf of it, but I'll take the opportunity to address the minister on behalf of not only the people of Niagara Centre but the people of Port Colborne and Wainfleet and Fort Erie who want that 406 extension developed southbound.

Quite frankly, it's not necessary to do a whole lot of developmental work, because the highway, when it was built so many years ago, was designed to be a four-lane highway. Don't talk to us about studies and engineering reports. I'm confident, and I'll come over and help you look for them-we'll bring a video cam if we have to. I'm confident that the plans are already there. We could do it at 6 in the morning, 7 in the morning or 7 at night, at your pleasure.

I'm convinced, Minister, that the plans-

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Can I come? I would like to go with you.

Mr Kormos: Ms Martel wishes to accompany me. I'm confident that the plans are already there. It's a simple matter of you keeping the ministry's promise. Promises made, Minister, should be kept. Your predecessor promised an extension of the 406 and its four-laning. Keep the ministry's promise, Minister: Four-lane the 406 like you promised the people of Welland, Thorold, Port Colborne, Wainfleet and any other number of ridings along the Lake Erie shore.

DEFERRED VOTES

SAFE SCHOOLS ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ DANS LES ÉCOLES

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 81,

An Act to increase respect and responsibility, to set standards for safe learning and safe teaching in schools and to amend the Teaching Profession Act / Projet de loi 81, Loi visant à accroître le respect et le sens des responsabilités, à fixer des normes pour garantir la sécurité des conditions d'apprentissage et d'enseignement dans les écoles et à modifier la

Loi sur la profession enseignante.

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

The division bells rang from 1415 to 1420.

The Speaker: Mrs Ecker has moved third reading of Bill 81,

An Act to increase respect and responsibility, to set standards for safe learning and safe teaching in schools and to amend the Teaching Profession Act.

All those in favour of the motion by Mrs Ecker relating to school safety, please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Eves, Ernie L.

Flaherty, Jim

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael D.

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Palladini, Al

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

The Speaker: All those opposed?

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 48; the nays are 41.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

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

VISITORS

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like all of us to welcome a group of grade 8 students from l'école publique de la Rivière Castor d'Embrun who are here to visit us today at Queen's Park. Bienvenue à l'Assemblée législative.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm pleased to announce the presence in the Legislature today, in the members' gallery, of Anna Hucajluk and Catherine Tirpko of St Catharines, accompanied by Hellen Markowski of Buffalo, the great-great-niece of the great Bulgarian socialist leader Dmitri Blagoeff.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Welcome from all the members.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WATER QUALITY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Today I want to know why it is that you've done so little to prevent another Walkerton-type tragedy. It has been several days now-in fact, nearly a month-since the outbreak of E coli in Walkerton's water. It has been 22 days since E coli claimed its first victim who lost her life. People across the province who work to protect our water know that you are doing nothing to prevent a recurrence of this kind of tragedy.

I have in my hands a copy of a water conservation report produced by the Kettle Creek Conservation Authority. I want to quote a passage from it: "As of June 2000, there is no comprehensive monitoring, evaluation, management or protection of either ground- or surface water quality in the province of Ontario." That is devastating indictment of your refusal to act after the Walkerton tragedy. Can you tell us today why you are still failing to act to protect our water?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the Minister of the Environment could outline many things that we've done and changes in procedures since Walkerton. I'll give him an opportunity to do so in just a second, but let me repeat some of the initiatives we've taken. Our immediate concern was Walkerton, the people of Walkerton. The response there from the people of Walkerton has been overwhelming. They're grateful for the response of the various ministries, including the Ministry of the Environment in particular. This has been relayed in a number of forums, public and private, as well as with the mayor.

In addition, we announced a number of processes and inquiries to get to the bottom of what happened in Walkerton and how we could ensure that we prevent that from ever happening again. At the same time, the Ministry of the Environment announced, within a few days, a reaffirmation of the procedures that should have been followed. The ministry insisted they must be followed to prevent this kind of situation in the future. That was within a matter of days. At the same time, the minister and the ministry are responding to thousands of FOI requests, doing the estimates. So it's been a very busy ministry.

Mr McGuinty: The only thing that you have done since Walkerton that has been of any value to Ontario is the result of us dragging you into those things kicking and screaming. We dragged you kicking and screaming into a public inquiry. We dragged you kicking and screaming into providing reasonable compensation for the people of Walkerton. We dragged you kicking and screaming into producing whistle-blower legislation. Those things came from this side of the House; they didn't come from that side of the House. There has been a complete dearth of leadership when it comes to a response to the Walkerton tragedy.

Let's come back to the same said report. It goes on to say that when it comes to responsibility and accountability for water in Ontario, these matters were either eliminated or transferred to the local municipal level.

In particular, it says the following, "Provincial leadership in assisting municipalities to coordinate and implement their new responsibilities has yet to materialize." This conservation authority is saying what we've been saying, it's saying what the people of Ontario have been saying: You are not demonstrating any leadership when it comes to making sure that Walkerton-type tragedies don't recur in Ontario. Again, Premier, why are you not demonstrating any leadership on this issue?

Hon Mr Harris: I appreciate the member reminding us of the pats on the back for the marvellous role he's played in being constructive and positive in this whole affair. Let me say that on May 25 I offered immediate assistance to the town of Walkerton. The Ontario Clean Water Agency was sent to Walkerton to ensure the water supply was made safe as soon as possible. On May 31, the Attorney General announced a commission of inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act. Mr Dennis O'Connor of the Ontario Court of Appeal was appointed as commissioner on June 9.

On June 2, we announced our initial seed money of $100,000 for the Brockton Response Centre, which got them through the first week, the initial week, as it was intended to do. On June 6, Minister of Education Janet Ecker announced $300,000 in special funding to ensure that students could continue their school year in a number of other areas. On June 8, the government announced an immediate aid package for the residents of Walkerton and there was a standing ovation for the ministers who were there by the 200 or 300 residents, who appreciated the response.

On June 12, Minister Flaherty introduced amendments to the Public Inquiries Act to ensure that the whistle-blowing-type protection called for by the member, and let me congratulate you for being on the same-

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

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you are continuing to gamble that this won't happen again. If you are sincerely committed to ensuring that you draw whatever lessons you can from the terrible mistakes you made in the past, then you will immediately hire, on a permanent basis, 100 inspectors and enforcement officers over at the Ministry of the Environment.

This morning we were amazed to learn that you are not considering hiring those inspectors. You said, "I don't think it makes sense to staff up for that bulge on a permanent basis." Is that what you think this is, some kind of a blip, some kind of a bulge? This is a permanent crisis, created by things you did, that calls for a permanent solution. Premier, will agree to hire, on a permanent basis, those 100 inspectors?

Hon Mr Harris: I appreciate that already the leader of the Liberal Party knows more than Justice O'Connor, more than the reviews we've initiated, more than the coroner, more than others. The fact of the matter is that we do not know yet whether 100, 500 or 1,000 new employees need to be added. We don't know whether it's for a short period of time, a medium period of time or a long period of time.

What I can tell you is that the Minister of the Environment has carte blanche to hire who, and however many people, he needs to ensure and protect the integrity of the water for all residents of this province. There can be no more far-reaching response than that from a government that is dealing with having to do estimates, dealing with FOI requests, dealing with a number of other-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Sorry to interrupt, Premier. The Premier will take his seat. I can't hear that. We'll just wait until people stop shouting. Yesterday we got to the Liberal question way down the list. More questions get on, but if you're yelling, we'll just stand here.

Sorry for the interruption. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: There are a number of areas that are being looked at both in the short-term, the medium-term and the long-term, as they should be. I think it's a little presumptuous for the member to prejudge precisely how many, if any, are required to meet all of these requests. This is a matter that we are all taking a look at, that we are all treating very seriously.

As you know, immediately following Walkerton we reconfirmed the procedures that were to be followed, which I'm sure will be a matter of investigation. We're very confident that we not only have in this province the safest water in North America, but that we will continue to have in the future. If there's more we can do to give those assurances, by golly, we're going to get in there and do it.

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): Back to the Premier: It's funny, you know, that the Premier had complete conviction and certainty and no doubt whatsoever when he decided to let 900 staff go. Apparently that was the number. I don't know, Premier, if 100 will do the job but I can say that when it comes to the safety of Ontario drinking water, I'd rather err on the side of caution; I'd rather do the hiring. If the commission concludes it's too many at a later date, then we can deal with that, but at the present time surely what we should do in the public interest is make that higher.

Do you know what else we know, Premier? Not only did you let 900 staff people go, but you cut the number of inspections by two thirds. There was a time in Ontario when we had our inspections once a year. Now it's happening once every three years. I don't know for certain, but I have a feeling that if we were to ask the people of Ontario today, they would say they want their water to be checked by the provincial government regularly and frequently and without fail. They expect that our provincial government will keep its hand in water safety in Ontario.

So I ask you, Premier, on behalf of all Ontarians, to rise to the occasion, exercise leadership and commit to hiring 100 inspectors on a permanent basis.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think we've heard loud and clear from the public that they would like their water tested and checked and inspected regularly and frequently and without fail. If more people are required, we will hire whatever it takes to do just that.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, this is as good an opportunity as any to get you on the record when it comes to this issue. Are you maintaining now that your cuts to the Ministry of the Environment-40% of the funding, one third of the staff-together with the changes in procedures and policies contributed in no way whatsoever to the Walkerton tragedy? I want to know that answer.

Hon Mr Harris: I know the member opposite and other members have been quick to lay blame and assess blame and point fingers. I have made it very clear in any of those responses that I didn't believe that today, or the day I was asked, was the day to lay or assess any blame. There is a factual record of information that's there of what happened and when. That is the reason why we have a full commission of inquiry and why we will have a coroner's inquest to answer those very questions. They're all on the table. Everything is there to be looked at that should be there.

I repeat again, I have assessed or blamed no one today, and I have made that very clear on numerous occasions. Others have interpreted it in other ways. The member who has pointed the most fingers shakes his head. That's the Leader of the Opposition, the member who has all the answers, right down to the actual number of employees who should be hired. I tell you, would that leadership were quite that easy. You may think it is, in opposition, but I tell you, it is not quite that easy in practice.

Mr McGuinty: Now we have it. It is now out in the open for the first time. The reason that this Premier is failing to take and show leadership on this issue in terms of making sure that Walkerton doesn't recur in any other community in Ontario is because he's refusing to admit that, to whatever minimal degree possible, his government and his policies contributed to Walkerton.

The Ministry of the Environment produced its own memos warning us about this. The Provincial Auditor warned about these cuts. The Environmental Commissioner warned about these cuts. A variety of environmental groups warned about these cuts. These cuts and what you did, Premier, when taken all together, constitute a road map that took us directly to Walkerton. That's what they tell us. We're never going to resolve this, we're never going to get to the bottom of this, to use your language, until you admit some responsibility.

Premier, tell us again. Tell us that your cuts, your reductions in funding, the fact that you let so many staff members go, the changes to your procedures and policies when it comes to reporting and testing in Ontario, had nothing whatsoever to do with what happened in Walkerton.

Hon Mr Harris: Let me repeat that rather than assess blame and point fingers, we have put independent inquiries in place to do just that. I know that's what you want to do but we are not here to play that game. We thought it was far more important to immediately-and we have made no denials. We've said, "Let's have a full inquiry to look at it." I know in opposition you have the luxury to blame anybody and everybody every day of the week. We, rather, felt that how we help the people of Walkerton was more important. How do we immediately get up there and meet with them? How do we respond to their needs?

How do we give assurances to the people of Walkerton and, indeed, once we've dealt with their crisis and their emergency and their tragedy, how then do we give assurances to the rest of the people of the province? We have put our action and our efforts into that, at the same time as you have put your efforts into blaming.

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, when I questioned your Minister of the Environment in the estimates committee about protecting the quality of drinking water for Ontario citizens, he looked like he'd been hit by a truck. Surprisingly, incredibly, he admitted he had not been consulted or briefed on your government's proposal to force municipalities to privatize their waterworks.

He did admit that he thought any such proposal should wait until after the Walkerton inquiry, but your Minister of Municipal Affairs says it's full speed ahead as if the Walkerton inquiry doesn't matter. He says: "Oh, no, we're going to do this. The Walkerton inquiry, that's not really relevant."

Premier, will you give the people of Ontario some peace of mind? Will you categorically, here and now, deep-six your government's proposal to force the municipalities to sell off their drinking water delivery systems?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): No such policy exists, so there's nothing to deep-six. It is not the intention of this government and never has been. There's no proposal before us to force municipalities to do anything-in fact just the opposite. What has been under discussion, I understand, in municipal affairs are concerns that municipalities may look at privatizing some services, like police or fire, which we have I think ruled out completely, or like garbage, as a number of municipalities have done, or water or sewer, which they're free to do now.

They were free to do it under your government and there are no restrictions on municipalities doing it. They did that under your government and some have privatized some of those services under our government. The exact opposite is what the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is looking at: Should we put a freeze on that, or under what conditions ought municipalities to be allowed to exit from a business and have the private sector or another agency do it? That is under consideration. I'm sure it'll have your support.

Mr Hampton: Premier, you need to talk to your Minister of Municipal Affairs because his answer yesterday, here and outside, was very clear and unequivocal, that as far as he's concerned, your proposal to force municipalities to sell off their water and sewer systems is going full speed ahead, regardless of what the Walkerton inquiry finds. Don't you find a contradiction here? Don't you find a bit of a contradiction if the Walkerton report finds that your privatization of water services already, your reductions in the amount of work and staff to protect water supplies, are connected to what happened at Walkerton?

Your proposal as put forward by the Minister of Municipal Affairs amounts to complete contempt for the inquiry and contempt for people in Walkerton. Don't you see that, Premier? You can't be saying to the people of Walkerton and the people of Ontario that you want to get to the bottom of this, and then at the same time be saying, "Oh, but notwithstanding Walkerton, we're going to push ahead with more privatization." There is a contradiction and you owe it to the people of Ontario to tell them the government's true agenda. Are you interested in getting to the bottom of this or are you going to force on municipalities more of the conditions which put their drinking water at risk? Which is it?

Hon Mr Harris: We've been very clear that any actions we're taking are to ensure safe drinking water for all residents of this province. The only contradiction is the stuff you seem to be making up. You're asking me about a proposal that you made up that nobody is considering. Yes, I'm opposed to your proposal that nobody is considering. It's not our proposal; you're the only one who has talked about it. I do know, and I repeat as I said in response to your first question, that municipalities privatized a number of services under your government. They were free to do so; they were their services. They have also done so under our government.

I am not aware of a single municipality that wishes to privatize its water system, but they could do it today. We are looking at under what conditions municipalities ought to be allowed to privatize any of these services that they've traditionally performed in the public sector under their own care. I think you would want to support that. I'm sure you would want to support that. I don't know why you make up this other silly stuff.

Mr Hampton: It is quite incredible. When reports or studies emerge from your government which put into question your government's direction or agenda, suddenly the whole government, from the Premier down, says: "I didn't see that. I didn't know about it." That's exactly the line that the Minister of the Environment tried: "I don't know a thing about this."

Premier, what we're talking about here is a cabinet document that says you are going to set up a review process which will not only have the effect of forcing municipalities to sell off their water systems, but also would have the effect of forcing municipalities to lay off the very people who are there to protect the water; in other words, to duplicate what you've already done in the Ministry of the Environment.

Premier, in the context of the Walkerton inquiry, which is supposed to look at all of these issues and see what were the factors that led to the death of seven people and possibly 11 people and the illness of 2,000 people, that's one of the very things they're going to look at. Don't show contempt for that inquiry, and show some respect for the people across Ontario, Premier. Tell them that you're not going to proceed with this proposal, you're not going to put in motion this proposal in any way, while the Walkerton inquiry is being held. That's all I'm asking, Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: Given that it's your proposal, we won't proceed with it.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Minister, yesterday at estimates committee, your total failure to answer most of the questions that were put forward was really quite incredible. So I want to ask you a question today. I know your deputy minister isn't here to help you, but I hope you can answer this question on your own.

Ever since Walkerton, people across Ontario have been worried about the quality of their drinking water. So my simple question is this: How many Ontario communities today are having to boil their drinking water? Can you answer that simple question, Minister?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): First off, with respect to the estimates committee yesterday, I think everyone ought to be aware that the leader of the third party asked a very technical question. I offered one of my assistant deputy ministers to answer that very technical question for him. You know what? He refused. He wouldn't listen to what the assistant deputy minister had to say.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Newman: It's all a game. There he is, asking a question, but he doesn't want the answers. It was unbelievable, when an assistant deputy minister came to the table to offer the answers of a very technical nature and the leader of the third party refused to listen to that assistant deputy minister.

Mr Hampton: The minister has just illustrated why I asked that very simple question. Here is the minister who is supposed to be protecting the quality of Ontario citizens' drinking water, and he can't even answer that simple question.

What is more unbelievable, Minister, is that essentially I've asked you the same or a similar question on May 29, May 31, June 1, June 5 and June 7, and you still don't know. That is the sad state of your ministry and the sad state of yourself as Minister of the Environment.

I want to come back to your drinking water surveillance program. It only checks 28% of Ontario's 627 local water systems. Some 452 municipal water systems are ignored by your government. Isn't the reason you keep refusing to answer these very basic questions that every Ontario citizen has a right to know because you simply don't have the program, you don't have the staff, and what's more, you don't have the will to protect people's drinking water?

Hon Mr Newman: Nothing could be further from the truth, what the leader of the third party is saying. He talks about the drinking water surveillance program. There have been media reports that that was cancelled. That is wrong. We've actually added more facilities to the drinking water surveillance program. In fact, an additional 10 facilities each and every year are added to that program to monitor testing.

Mr Hampton: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Minister, just release the information today.

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

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Walkerton has happened. Seven people have lost their lives-at least seven people-as a result of E coli in that water system. They're telling us that as many as 2,000 people were buckled over and in intense pain when they fell prey to the E coli illness. An entire community was devastated. Now people right across the province of Ontario are wondering whether or not you are doing everything you should be doing to make sure it doesn't happen to them and their families in their communities.

You cut the ministry budget by 40%. You let one third of the staff go. Do you not agree that in the circumstances, to provide some reassurance to the people of Ontario and to those many parents out there concerned about the state of their drinking water, it is the right thing to do today to announce that you're going to hire at least 100 inspectors and enforcement officers who will be on the job around the clock, seven days a week, 365 days a year, on a permanent basis, from here on in, to make sure this never, ever happens again?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): We have taken actions to make sure this never, ever happens again. If any of the reviews, including the internal review, indicates a need for more staff, as I indicated, the ministry has been given carte blanche to hire that staff.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you continue to be wilfully blind to what happened inside your own ministry. You continue to turn a deaf ear to the many warnings that have been issued. You haven't paid any attention to those kinds of things. What that does is demonstrate your refusal to take at least some minimal responsibility when it comes to making sure this doesn't happen again.

Let's leave Walkerton behind for the time being. Let's leave that to the inquiry for the time being. What about the future? Don't you feel some sense of responsibility to do what's necessary to make sure that Ontario's drinking water is safe in every community? Doesn't that dictate that in the circumstances, given the cuts that have been made to your own ministry by you, we rehire on a permanent basis at least 100 inspectors and enforcement officers? If I'm wrong, then why don't you tell the people of Ontario why it is you think I'm wrong and why I shouldn't be so worried about their safety when it comes to their drinking water?

Hon Mr Harris: No one has said you're right; no one has said you're wrong. I'm a little surprised that in the short period of time you always have all the answers, more so than Justice O'Connor, more so than the coroner, more so than all the experts.

We have, as I've articulated, taken a number of actions right away and immediately. Those actions and directives have, I think, been supported by all who are involved. Instead of wild accusations, and quite frankly some silly nonsense, what we have been doing is putting in place plans for the short, the medium and the long term. We have not refused to accept responsibility. We have accepted carte blanche, as Premier of the province I have accepted carte blanche, that if there is anything that has been amiss or is amiss, or any concerns about the future, our job is to find that out and go and fix it.

POVERTY

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I understand that tomorrow John Clarke from the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty will be protesting outside the Legislature. This group is protesting in order to bring the issues of the poor to the attention of the government. It seems that one of Mr Clarke's issues, among many, is that he wants to reinstate the 21.6% cut to welfare rates. His group on numerous occasions has shown that it is willing to enter into a physical confrontation with police to make its views known. Is this necessary? Can you not tell us today what our government has done to help the poor in this province?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Trying to restore hope and opportunity in this province has been the top priority of this government. We've made job creation and economic growth a real priority. In fact, our welfare rates in Ontario continue to be as much as 36% higher than the average of the other nine provinces.

Where do we look to find validation for that policy? We look to Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals. He put out a press release last year. It says: "I fear I may have left the impression that it was my intent to fully restore the 22% welfare cut to all recipients. That is not my intention," said Dalton McGuinty. He obviously accepts the view of this government and the size of up to 36% higher than the average of the nine provinces. He didn't promise in his campaign document to spend a dime more.

We're doing a whole lot to help the poor, whether it's to increase funding for the child care supplement for working families, more money to help single parents get to parenting schools and training schools, more money for breakfast nutrition programs-

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

Mrs Munro: The reality is that John Clarke and the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty are also coming to the Legislature tomorrow to bring attention to the plight of the homeless. They believe the government is not doing enough to help. Mr Clarke feels so strongly about this that he has asked to personally address the Legislature on this topic in order that his views be heard. I don't believe anyone in this Legislature disagrees that homelessness is an important issue that needs to be a priority of everyone in this chamber. Minister, can you tell Mr Clarke today what you are doing for the homeless in this province?

Hon Mr Baird: Like Mr Clarke, and indeed many people right across the province of Ontario-

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton East, come to order, please. Sorry, Minister.

Hon Mr Baird: Like all Ontarians, we're tremendously concerned about the plight of the homeless in this province. Building on the more than $2 billion a year that we spend to help those who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless, we're spending $10 million with our provincial homelessness initiatives fund, providing funds to every municipality across Ontario to help them combat homelessness.

We're providing $66 million a year to help municipalities pay for emergency shelters, increasing money for the community start-up benefit, providing more money to help divert ex-offenders from the hostel system, and providing more money for municipalities through the community partners program. The Ministry of Health is providing as much as $45 million in new money for additional mental health supports.

And finally, now, when the federal Liberal caucus in Ontario, all 101 of them, were missing in action, we have an MP and a minister from New Brunswick actually coming to the table with some money six months after she announced it. We're looking forward to getting that federal money flowing because of the total inaction by the Liberal caucus from Ontario.

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Back to a subject that people of Ontario are talking about that's extremely important. This question is to the Minister of the Environment. I've heard about this so-called inspection blitz of water treatment plants in the province that you're going to undertake. I hope this isn't just a public relations exercise, because I don't think your ministry officials have told you what's involved in inspecting each one of these plants.

The people who are actually going to do this: What are their specific qualifications? What is their specific experience? What is their expertise? Do they have certificates to be able to do this? Do you recognize that it takes probably at least a week to do a thorough physical and paper inspection of the plants in Ontario? How on earth are you going to do this? Where are you going to get the staff? Are they going to have the proper qualifications to do the job?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): On May 29, I announced a proposed regulation that looked at four issues: One of them was the notification requirements for labs in the province; another requirement was for municipalities to inform the Ministry of the Environment that they intended to change the laboratory that was doing the work for them; another point included in that was that all labs must be accredited; it also included a review of the certificates of approval, which includes looking at and inspecting all of the 630 sites in our province. This inspection will be done by the end of this year and it will be done by qualified personnel.

Mr Bradley: That is absolutely no answer to the question. My concern is who the specific people are, what kind of certificates they have to be able to do this job, what expertise they have, what experience they have, where on earth you're going to get them now that you've fired most of the people out the door of the Ministry of the Environment and broken up the dedicated teams. And you know how long it takes to do and what's required in these inspections.

If you're taking them from the Ministry of the Environment, what important jobs are you taking them away from? How are you leaving the people of this province vulnerable in other areas? They're finding barrels of volatile compounds in downtown St Catharines at this time. They're boiling water or refusing to use the water in French River. They're boiling water in other places. Sewage treatment plants need inspections to ensure they're not spewing forth contaminants. Where on earth are you going to get the staff, and if you get them from the Ministry of the Environment, what other areas are you leaving vulnerable to risk in this province?

Hon Mr Newman: I did answer the member's question. I indicated to him that all inspections would be done by qualified staff, that each and every one of the 630 facilities in Ontario would indeed be inspected, along with the certificates of approval for those sites. They will be inspected. It will be done by the end of this year-630 sites throughout the province. This is a goal that the Ministry of the Environment will achieve.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Much of my riding of Durham, as you might know, is similar to parts of northern Ontario; there are those who might think it is part of northern Ontario. We face many unique challenges: the great distances between people, distances to travel, lack of public transit, sparse population, climate control. These all affect economic development and the delivery of service. Minister, can you explain to the Legislature and to the people of Ontario what initiatives your ministry is undertaking to help create a level playing field in small-town and northern Ontario communities to spur economic development?

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I thank the member for his question. A number of opportunities for northern communities were made in the budget: a record highway investment program of $850 million in the next four years; record tax cuts for business, particularly for the mining sector, to spur that; as well, we have the northern Ontario heritage fund.

One particular program in the heritage fund that I like to boast about is our capital assistance for small communities program, targeted at the small communities in northern Ontario that often face greater challenges because of distances and small populations. That program invests about $27 million into various projects to renew and enhance local services and infrastructure in 275 small communities throughout northern Ontario.

By investing in infrastructure in small towns, we are helping these communities to grow and prosper in the years and decades ahead. Our funding has helped to improve community infrastructure, create jobs and boost the northern economy.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much for that response, Minister. I know you and the Minister of Agriculture have gone out of your way to help address and rebuild small-town Ontario.

As you know, I've had the privilege of travelling most of Ontario as part of the Legislative Assembly process. One comment that I've heard-and I'm sure you have too-is that many small parts of northern Ontario have not experienced the economic boom to the extent that southern Ontario has. I recall that in the budget, as I said, both you and the Minister of Agriculture have announced that there would be funding for renewing parts of small-town Ontario. Could you explain what the heritage fund will do to help small-town and northern Ontario reach their full economic potential?

Hon Mr Hudak: The member makes a very good point. The unemployment rates are dropping in northern Ontario. In the northwest they have dropped from 9.4% down to 6.7%, and in the northeast from 11.6% down to 9.9%. Progress is being made to create jobs in northern Ontario and better opportunities, but there is more work to be done. That's why we'll continue to cut taxes, to invest in northern Ontario highways.

In particular, I was very pleased that in the year 2000 budget on May 2, not only did we renew the heritage fund, not only are we expanding the heritage fund, but we are doubling the heritage fund to $60 million per year, doubling the kind of investment we're making in small-town northern Ontario communities.

In the next few months, the heritage fund will be reviewing its programs and guidelines to build upon its most successful programs, like the small communities initiative I mentioned to the member earlier on, and will look to new areas of investment. Our government's demonstrated commitment to northern Ontario communities will continue well into the future.

RETIREMENT HOMES

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Minister of Health. The tragedy in Walkerton has made the importance of frequent inspections and ongoing monitoring to protect public health and safety all the more clear. I want to remind you of another area where you've failed Ontarians.

Last October I raised in this House-and sent you a letter with proposals to address-the crisis of unregulated retirement homes. You did nothing to respond to those proposals. After a series of Toronto Star articles detailing horror stories of vulnerable seniors experiencing abuse and neglect, in the absence of provincial action the city of Toronto took interim measures in areas of their jurisdiction like public health, fire code and building code.

This week I learned that the city of Toronto's retirement home inspection program is going to be cancelled at the end of this month unless they get a cheque from you, the Ministry of Health. The hotline will be cancelled; the inspectors will be laid off. We've seen what happens when public health gets short shrift under your government. Minister, will you provide public health units with the resources they need in order to maintain inspection of private retirement homes?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I think the member is well aware of the fact that the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation has been addressing this issue. I would refer it.

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, minister responsible for seniors and women): I'd like to thank the member opposite for the question. Let me say that we have been working with a number of different organizations to talk about what we can do with rest and retirement homes in the province of Ontario.

Let me be very clear today that there is a municipal responsibility associated with rest and retirement homes; that the city of Toronto, through a number of its earlier municipalities, has bylaws that are there to protect seniors in the retirement homes; and that we continue to work with municipalities as they implement new bylaws to ensure that the people in retirement homes in their communities are safe.

Ms Lankin: Minister of Health, these additional resources that have been put into inspection of rest and retirement homes will end at the end of this month unless you give them a cheque. Not only must you provide the resources, you must put in place standards-of-care regulations. We're talking about people-medically frail, medically compromised seniors who need care-who, because of lack of other options, are being forced into inadequate care.

You send out a parliamentary assistant on a tour with backroom, closed-door, by-invitation-only so-called consultations. Now we hear from top health officials that she's not even going to issue a report. She's only passing on a recommendation to the minister and that recommendation is for self-regulation of the industry. You are going to abandon frail seniors to self-regulation by an industry whose track record screams out for the government to step in and protect seniors. Minister, have you learned nothing from the tragedy at Walkerton? Where is the report? Why is it being buried?

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

Hon Mrs Johns: I find it somewhat amazing that the member opposite would talk about this government in that regard. Let me say that this government has moved forward with an elder abuse strategy; they've moved forward to ensure that seniors are safe in their communities. We continue to work at many different initiatives. We've made more long-term-care facility beds available to the seniors in this province. We continue to work on a number of different initiatives to make sure that seniors are safe. Let me say that we will continue to work with the municipalities to make sure that seniors in every municipality across this province are safe.

SAFETY-KLEEN SITE

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. The Safety-Kleen landfill and incinerator is the largest toxic waste site in Canada, and your government approved its expansion in 1997 with no public hearings under either the Environmental Protection Act or the Environmental Assessment Act to fast-track the process. This 300-acre site sits on an aquifer with close proximity to the Great Lakes. The experts are expressing doubts about the clay liner that's protecting the groundwater and they think it could be leaking from contaminants.

Hazardous waste is still being dumped within 15 metres of these cracks. To add to this problem, Safety-Kleen has applied for bankruptcy. You, as the minister of the crown, have direct responsibility to ensure that our groundwater is not being contaminated. Minister, this is serious. Will you act and put a full-time inspector on that site and a geotechnical engineer to oversee the repairs on this site?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): I want to assure the people who live near this landfill site that we will take any action that is needed to handle this situation and to safeguard their health and their environment.

In addition to formal inspections by ministry staff, we're also inspecting the site on a regular basis to respond to complaints or to evaluate changes in the operations at the Safety-Kleen site.

Recent comments in regard to the adequacy of the ministry monitoring at the site overlooked the fact that the company already employs inspection personnel, consultants and geo-site professionals to monitor site operations and to report their findings to the ministry.

Ms Di Cocco: Minister, with all due respect, I'd like to tell you that the Taro landfill in Stoney Creek has a full-time inspector and it is not even a toxic hazardous landfill. Not only that, this is the second-largest in North America, and Minister, you are accountable if we have contamination of our groundwater in Moore township.

The previous ministers and you have ignored your responsibilities. You consistently appear to protect the interests of Safety-Kleen at the expense of our groundwater and the people of Sarnia-Lambton.

You can act now, Minister, and just put an inspector on the site, a full-time inspector, and a geotechnical engineer. That is your responsibility, sir.

Hon Mr Newman: My responsibility as Minister of the Environment is to protect the environment. That's what I'm doing. Ministry staff are required to conduct formal inspections of hazardous waste disposal sites a minimum of once per year. Typically with this site, the staff conducts inspections on a semi-annual basis. There's groundwater monitoring, and that's audited by the ministry staff on an annual basis.

In addition to these formal inspections, there are also regular inspections conducted based on such factors as environmental concerns, other potential non-compliance issues and whether or not there have been recent changes to the site operations.

AIRLINE INDUSTRY

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Minister, earlier this year you told this House about a report that you had sent to the Honourable David Collenette, federal Minister of Transportation, which was entitled Improving Quality Service Standards for Airline Passengers. From what I recall, the report included several practical, voluntary solutions to improve the quality of flying experiences for passengers.

Minister, could you please inform this House what Minister Collenette's response to the report was?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I want to thank the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford for raising an issue that is of utmost importance to air travellers in this country.

I wish I was able to update the member on Minister Collenette's response to the report. The problem is that I'm still waiting to hear from the minister myself, 12 weeks after I sent him the report. I've had staff from-

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Sorry for the interruption, Minister.

Hon Mr Runciman: I've had staff from my office contact Mr Collenette's office asking when we will receive some sort of response to our recommendations, and even they didn't know when we would get an answer.

Fifteen key travel industry players representing thousands of Ontario travellers took the time to sit down with me to draft suggestions for some real change in the airline industry. I find it very frustrating, as they do, that the federal government doesn't even have the common courtesy to draft a letter saying, "Thank you for your submission, and we'll take a look at the recommendations and get back to you." I'm very disappointed in the lack of response from the federal government. I had sincerely hoped for a better reception, since I thought we had the same objectives in mind.

The Speaker: The minister's time is up.

Mr Tascona: I've been following the story of the airline mergers in the papers and have read the many horror stories that have come from disgruntled passengers as a result of the changes of services. Stories about people being sent to the wrong terminal at Pearson airport and cancelled trips seem to be popping up more and more frequently. However, I've also read plenty of articles addressing steps the federal government claims they have taken towards improving services to Canadian travellers.

Minister, could you clarify for me and for the members of this House who are listening what the federal government has done to address this issue?

Hon Mr Runciman: That's just the problem: The federal government has yet to take any significant steps towards improving airline services in this country. Last month, Minister Collenette announced he was appointing a special commissioner to investigate travel horror stories. Apparently, this commissioner will look into customer complaints, but it's not clear if he or she will have any power to force airlines to act on the recommendations.

The Competition Bureau is investigating one specific incident of predatory pricing with Air Canada, but that doesn't even begin to cover the hundreds of other problems consumers face while travelling. Our report includes recommendations like instant, 24-hour access to customer complaint representatives, careful baggage handling and improved onboard service standards.

This government is committed to doing what we can to bring consumers' concerns about airline service quality to the attention of the federal Liberals. It's unfortunate that they can't commit to simple solutions even when they're-

The Speaker: The member for Timiskaming-Cochrane.

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): I wish I had a question for the former minister. He's getting his style back.

Today I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. Through all of this, I think it's becoming fairly obvious that we have a crisis in water management in this province. The reason is because you and your colleagues have allowed a turf war to paralyze water policy development in Ontario. Water policy is fragmented among six ministries and agencies in Ontario, resulting in a total lack of coordination.

MNR is responsible for a very important management agency: our conservation authorities. They are the lead agencies that manage flood plains and watershed quality in many parts of the province. During your term in office, you have cut transfers to the conservation authorities by 77%. Minister, can you assure me today that you will stop the cuts and start to reinstate funding to our conservation authorities?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I want to again inform the member opposite, as I stood in my place in this House on several occasions over the last three or four months as the province was anticipating some drought conditions a few months ago-the Speaker will remember-I have made representations in this chamber that we have worked co-operatively with several ministries to design a strategy to help municipalities meet those needs across the province.

Contrary to what the member has represented today, we in fact are working together more now than we ever have to help meet these needs across the province, whether that be drought response, whether that be flood plains, which is the original reason for the conservation authorities. We continue to fund conservation authorities across this province for the flood control that they were designed to do.

Mr Ramsay: The non-answer I've received from the minister really confirms my fears that he is preparing to make the final and last cut to the conservation authorities of $7.6 million, which I believe is now being recommended to him by his staff. Your ministry is desperately trying to hold on to something to manage, because you've downloaded and offloaded everything else. By destroying our conservation authorities, MNR would become the lead agency for watershed management. Meanwhile, the conservation authorities are going to play a lesser role under municipal control.

Here again, you're changing responsibilities without assuring that municipalities have comprehensive legislation and regulations to ensure effective management of all of our water resources. This continues your ad hoc approach to water management right across this province. When are you going to sit down with your colleagues and finally decide upon which one ministry in Ontario will be the lead to manage our water resources?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I can assure the member opposite that all of my colleagues on this side of the House are concerned with water issues right across this province. There is a concern with that in every relevant ministry, and there are several of those. As I mentioned a moment earlier, we are working together, and we have been working together over the course of many years, particularly the last year, to develop strategies that will meet the needs across the province. We think it's best done when ministries co-operate together, and that's what we've done over the course of the last year.

As it relates to conservation authorities, let me again remind the member opposite that we continue to fund the flood and erosion control that the conservation authorities were designed to do. Conservation authorities, as the member will know, are very different across the province. They have independent boards that set the standards for the different operations that they have in different communities. We continue to work with them right across the province.

SPORTS AND RECREATION FUNDING

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. Minister, my constituents and I are quite thrilled that the Toronto 2008 Olympic bid recently announced that Hardwood Hills, one of the many great sports facilities in my riding, will host all of the mountain bike events if the bid is successful.

That news made me wonder what our government is doing to help our young people participate in sports and recreation, not just so they can compete in the Olympics but to better prepare them for a long, healthy life. I understand that we do not directly support athletes themselves but that the federal government does. Can you explain the difference in the funding, Minister?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, minister responsible for seniors and women): I'd like to thank my colleague from Simcoe North for the question. I'd also like to say that it is the federal government's responsibility to support high-performance athletes who compete at national and international levels. It's the province's responsibility, on the other hand, to make sure that the citizens of the province are active, young and old, regardless of whether they're excellent athletes or just out being involved in day-to-day activities.

So the province provides $7.4 million to provincial sports organizations, such as the Ontario Wheelchair Sports Association or the Ontario Cycling Association, to ensure that citizens of the province are involved, they're active.

One of the other things we do is make sure we participate in games. We fund the Ontario Summer Games, which are happening in Durham this summer. We funded the Winter Games that happened in Sault Ste Marie, the Senior Games, the Games for the Physically Disabled, and we can't forget the 2001 Summer Games that are happening in London.

Mr Dunlop: I thank the minister for her explanation of the support for our provincial organizations. I'd also like to thank her for the opportunity of opening Timeship 2000 in Gravenhurst last Friday. That's a wonderful exhibit and I hope everyone in the province can get a chance to see it.

I'd also like to know what our government is doing to help communities provide the facilities our athletes need, not only to compete but to play sports and develop their skills. I think most of us are aware of the great plans to provide some excellent sporting venues for the Olympics, but what about places in my riding like Orillia and Midland? What support can they expect in terms of providing facilities for ourselves and for our children?

Hon Mrs Johns: I would like to reiterate the member's comment about Timeship 2000. It's a fabulous exhibit that's going across the province. It will be close to everybody, in 31 ridings all across the province. I know that everyone will enjoy it.

There are two initiatives that we're talking about when we're talking about building community arenas and soccer fields. The first one was announced in the budget, thanks to the Minister of Finance, Ernie Eves. It was the SuperBuild sports, culture and tourism partnerships initiative, and it's $300 million over five years to ensure that we rebuild and enhance facilities in the sports, recreation, culture and tourism areas.

The other program, which I'm extremely proud of, is $6 million over three years for a community sports opportunity fund. This is going to encourage young children between the ages of 6 and 16 to get involved, whether their parents can afford it or not. We'll make sure that communities work together with the provincial government to ensure that everybody is active, everybody is involved in sports in Ontario who wishes to be.

COST OF ELECTRICAL POWER

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. It's about another of the government's initiatives that seems to have gone wrong.

Premier, when your Minister of Energy brought in electricity reform, otherwise known as deregulation, he said that rates would go down by between 8% and 40%. Imagine my surprise two weeks ago when the manager of the Abitibi Consolidated paper mill in Fort Frances came to my office and said that as a result of your deregulation, the mill faces at least a 20% increase in their electricity rates. A 20% increase will mean a loss of jobs.

There are 15 other paper mills across northern Ontario, Premier. What are you going to do when all of them face these kinds of increases? Even one of your good friends, the president of the Independent Power Producers' Society, says, "Industrial users of electricity will probably see an increase in their power rates as the generation rate of the province equalizes to the adjoining US states."

You were supposed to cut power rates, but they're going up. What is your government going to do about it?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): It was a significant portion of the large power users in the industries and the industrial associations that supported preparing Hydro in this province for competition that is coming across North America. They were the ones that lobbied and advocated and said we needed to be ready for that competition.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Harris: Rather than scream and yell and interrupt, perhaps the member would like to hear the answer. What we indicated in an all-party committee, supported by your party, supported by the Liberal Party, was to put a plan forward of how we could phase in to that competition and ultimately achieve those benefits.

Mr Hampton: We didn't support it.

Hon Mr Harris: I'm sorry. Now the member says they didn't support it.

All indications from the industry groups are that this is a good thing to do. Some users had rates that were a little lower than other users as a result of deals that they had cut with Ontario Hydro. If they're able to continue to cut those deals with Hydro or other providers, then they-

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Under standing order 59(e), "No estimates shall be considered in the committee while any matter, including a procedural motion, relating to the same policy field is being considered in the House."

This afternoon in the estimates committee, the estimates of the Ministry of the Environment were scheduled. As you know, we have as well this afternoon an opposition non-confidence motion dealing with environmental matters. It's my understanding that all of the House leaders have agreed that it would be improper for the estimates of the Ministry of the Environment to proceed. The chairman of the estimates committee is insisting that the committee sit this afternoon, which I don't think is proper.

I'm looking for some direction from you as to whether or not it's necessary for the chairman to call an estimates meeting this afternoon, given that our standing orders actually prohibit any discussion with regard to the environment minister's estimates this afternoon in a committee.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member for Windsor-St Clair on the same point of order.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Mr Speaker, that is not my understanding of what the Chair of our committee said. When we first raised this matter this morning, when we discovered that in fact the government was trying to avoid having its minister appear before this committee, we said at the time, and the government agreed, that there would be an adjournment of this hearing until next week, as I understood it. My understanding also was that there simply needed to be a motion put by the committee to that effect, and that that had to be put by the committee.

That was the information we were provided by the government side. If that's not the case and we can simply re-schedule the hearing for next week, then we certainly can do that.

The Speaker: We have two more on the point of order. I think we have solved it, and I think sometimes when we tend to stand up and talk, we, for want of a better word, un-solve it. I think we have solved it, if I see both sides-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Any more talk and I'm not so sure. I will entertain points of order, but I think, if I'm looking at the House leaders on all three sides, the situation is solved. If members get up, we might not be in a situation to solve it. I leave it up to you. But I think we have solved it and I look for the guidance-on a point of order, the member for Broadview-Greenwood.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr Speaker, I wanted clarity as to what the government House leader said. What happened at committee yesterday-in fact, I suggested as an option, and I believe the government members didn't agree, that we cancel the estimates for today so we could all be here. That option was turned down by government members. I just want to get that on the record. Let's not play games with this. We're all agreeing that it should-

The Speaker: I appreciate that, but where we're at now is the committee is going to, with all-party agreement, have a motion to sit another day. That will solve the problem, I think.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Our page from Davenport has a few friends with her, including her mother, in the west gallery. I thought you might have the chance to welcome them.

The Speaker: I thank the member. It's not a point of order.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just want to iterate that I'm glad there is agreement on the estimates committee, but just for the benefit of the information of the House, the estimates committee can choose whether or not to accept a substitution for the minister. That question was put to the committee. That's simply for the information of the House. There wasn't a ruling by the Chair, but rather, as is the precedent, the committee was asked whether they preferred that. A motion was put to have it sit another day and then another motion was put to have a substitute, and that has now been solved.

The Speaker: I thank the members.

PETITIONS

PROSTATE CANCER

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislature.

"Whereas prostate cancer is one of the leading causes of fatal cancer in Ontario;

"Whereas prostate cancer is the second leading cause of fatal cancers for males;

"Whereas early detection is one of the best tools for being victorious in our battle against cancer;

"Whereas the early detection blood test known as PSA (prostate specific antigen) is one of the most effective tests at diagnosing early prostate cancer" and

whereas the Minister of Health's inaction is literally causing men to die needlessly;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to encourage the Ministry of Health to have this test added to the list of services covered by OHIP, and that this be done immediately in order for us to save lives and beat prostate cancer."

I affix my signature to this petition as I'm in agreement, and give it to Christopher Kent from Sudbury to bring to the table.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to revert to motions at this point in time to put forward a motion with regard to the sitting time for the standing committee on general government.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The government House leader has requested unanimous consent. Is there consent? It is agreed.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: In this House, if there are two of us standing, one of us is out of order, and it's not me.

The Chair recognizes the member for Hamilton West on a point of order.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): Mr Speaker, I merely wanted to point out that we're prepared to give unanimous consent but I don't think we all agree that we want to eat up the petition time to do that. We're quite prepared to do it afterwards or suspend the clock, but not to use the time. With that in mind, I would ask you, Speaker, to put the time back on and we'll do this right after.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to change the time to immediately after? It is agreed. We will continue with petitions.

WATER QUALITY

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm glad we made that agreement so I didn't lose petition time.

This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario on behalf of my constituents of the riding of Durham:

"Whereas it is well known that cattle are a significant source of dangerous strains of E coli bacteria; and

"Whereas cattle can be a serious source of degradation to rivers, streams and lakes through (1) defecating in or near the water, (2) breaking down and trampling banks and beaches, and (3) destroying vegetation in riparian zones;"-it's very well written, actually-"and

"Whereas many farmers permit their cattle to enter lakes and streams as a source of water;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully request that the government of Ontario pass binding legislation to establish mandatory setbacks from all watercourses, lakes and wetlands to prevent landowners or tenants from using such watercourses, lakes and wetlands as a source of water for cattle and other animals;

"We further respectfully request that the legislation be drafted in such a way that it cannot be overturned by the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board or any other special interest group."

I am pleased to present this on behalf of my constituents.

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas there has been chronic underfunding for developmental services in Ontario; and

"Whereas underfunding affects frontline workers' ability to provide a quality of life for the clients; and

"Whereas the underfunding is placing the lives and the safety of clients in jeopardy; and

"Whereas the underfunding has led to long waiting lists;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to increase funding to meet these five priorities for improved quality of life for people with developmental disabilities:

"(1) provide services beyond the basic needs of the clients;

"(2) improve the ratio of staff to clients;

"(3) increase the availability of services to eliminate waiting lists;

"(4) address the changing needs of clients;

"(5) address the high rate of staff turnover and burnout."

This is signed by over 500 individuals from the province of Ontario in London, Parry Sound, Hamilton, Dryden. I have affixed my signature as I am in full agreement.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have further petitions from Cecil Mackasey and Rick Roberts of CAW local 222. This has been forwarded to me by Cathy Walker, who is the national health and safety director for the CAW.

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

"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; and

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

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

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

"That it become a legal requirement that occupational history be recorded on a standard form when a patient presents at a physician for 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."

Again, on behalf of my NDP colleagues, I attach my name to this petition.

KARLA HOMOLKA

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, a very vital one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"That the government of Ontario will:

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature as well to this excellent petition.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): This is a petition that contains 1,000 more signatures.

To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario is actively pursuing private sector operators to run Ontario's correctional facilities, including adult strict-discipline boot camps, three megajails and five young offender facilities;

"Whereas findings show there is no cost savings to the taxpayer of Ontario;

"Whereas public safety will be greatly jeopardized in our communities;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the government of Ontario abandon all plans to privatize any aspects of the province's correctional system."

This was sent to me directly from the citizens of Penetanguishene and Midland and I affix my signature to this, with my thanks to them.

ALGONQUIN PARK WOLVES

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I have a petition here that was taken up by Laura Coristine, a Queen's student, and it's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the government of Ontario is committed under the Provincial Parks Act to protecting and preserving wildlife, the natural heritage and history of the land, and the diversity of the Algonquin Provincial Park ecosystem for the benefit of future generations; and

"Whereas the Algonquin wolves currently have very little protection unless they stay within the boundaries of Algonquin Park, and transboundary migration is common among Algonquin Park wildlife; and

"Whereas the majority of Algonquin wolves must leave the park at some time, as part of their natural movements; and

"Whereas the majority of Algonquin wolf deaths outside the park are human-caused, which is threatening the integrity of the population;

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

"We demand that protective measures, including policy modification and public education, be enacted to ensure the continuing survival of Algonquin Provincial Park populations, recognizing that the Algonquin wolves have a vital and integral role in healthy ecosystem function;

Specifically, that a minimum 10-kilometre no-kill zone be implemented around the perimeter of Algonquin Park for the protection of wolves venturing beyond park boundaries, with the no-kill zone including all townships that lie within this area, and the Ministry of Natural Resources take responsibility in promoting the coexistence of humans and wolves through public education programs, in order to reduce the senseless killing of wolves."

It's signed by about 1,500 people and I affix my signature to it as well.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

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

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

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

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

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

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

I submit this petition with my full support and I affix my signature.

DELAYED START OF SCHOOL

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I have literally hundreds of names on these petitions and they wanted to ensure that this was were read in the House.

"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."

I affix my name to these hundreds of names.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I have a petition signed by so many people from northwestern Ontario.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Bill 74 diminishes quality education for students in this province by ensuring teachers will be responsible for more students each day and will therefore have less time for each student;

"Whereas Bill 74 attacks the very heart of local democracy and accountability by creating a system of informers and absolute powers for the Minister of Education;

"Whereas Bill 74 cuts not only the heart out of education but also the spirit by making teachers perform voluntary activities on threat of termination;

"Whereas Bill 74 is an unprecedented attack on the collective bargaining rights of Ontario's teachers; and

"Whereas Bill 74 turns over all control over education in this province to one person, the Minister of Education;

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

"We call on the government to hold public hearings on Bill 74 immediately and also to terminate the bill."

I'm glad to put my name to it.

KARLA HOMOLKA

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I've got a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"That the government of Ontario will:

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

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

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

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

I'm happy to attach my name to it.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Bill 74 diminishes quality education for students in this province by ensuring teachers will be responsible for more students each day and will therefore have less time for each student;

"Whereas Bill 74 attacks the very heart of local democracy and accountability by creating a system of informers and absolute powers for the Minister of Education;

"Whereas Bill 74 cuts not only the heart out of education but also the spirit by making teachers perform voluntary activities on threat of termination;

"Whereas Bill 74 is an unprecedented attack on the collective bargaining rights of Ontario teachers; and

"Whereas Bill 74 turns over all control over education in this province to one person, the Minister of Education;

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

"We call on the government to hold public hearings on Bill 74 immediately."

I know that 700 people in Toronto in my riding of Parkdale-High Park and the municipality of Durham also believe that this bill should be withdrawn.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): By consent the House agreed to go to motions and we'll do that now.

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, minister responsible for seniors and women): I move that the standing committee on general government be authorized to sit beyond its normal hour of adjournment today until 8 pm this evening.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? It is carried.

It was that the standing committee on general government be authorized to sit beyond its normal hour of adjournment today until 8 pm this evening.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WANT OF CONFIDENCE MOTION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I wish to move the following motion:

That in the opinion of this House:

Since the provincial government has failed the people of Ontario in its duty to protect our drinking water-which killed people and made them sick; and

Since the provincial government has failed the people of Ontario in its duty to protect our air from pollutants-Ontario's air causes 1,800 premature deaths a year; and

Since clean water and air are essential to the health and well-being of Ontarians and their confidence in Ontario's water supply and air has been shaken;

Therefore, the government no longer has the confidence of this House.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr McGuinty moves want of confidence, that in the-dispense?

Interjections: No, no.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr McGuinty moves:

That in the opinion of this House:

Since the provincial government has failed the people of Ontario in its duty to protect our drinking water-which killed people and made them sick; and

Since the provincial government has failed the people of Ontario in its duty to protect our air from pollutants-Ontario's air causes 1,800 premature deaths a year; and

Since clean water and air are essential to the health and well-being of Ontarians and their confidence in Ontario's water supply and air has been shaken;

Therefore, the government no longer has the confidence of this House.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr McGuinty: So that people watching today understand, this is a non-confidence motion. I'm calling today on the members of this House to state that they no longer have confidence in this government. What I'm doing in a real sense is calling on the members of this House to formally recognize what is going on outside of this House, and that is, quite simply, that the people of Ontario themselves have lost confidence in the Mike Harris government.

I want to take some time now to speak to the issue of leadership, in particular leadership in terms of how it earns the confidence of people. How does a government show leadership? First of all, it shows leadership by doing its job, and the job description of a government, or at least the job description of a government as I would draft it, would include as its most fundamental responsibility to keep Ontarians out of harm's way, to keep Ontarians safe. It's the government's job to protect human life. What could be more important than that? Are tax cuts more important than life itself?

Is ideology more important than life itself? Is politics more important than life itself? Obviously, the answer is no.

To earn the confidence of the people, a government must do its job. When this government failed to protect our drinking water, it failed to protect human life and it didn't do its job. The consequences were nothing less than horrific. At least seven people have lost their lives, somewhere around 2,000 people became sick, and an entire community was plunged into a state of devastation.

It seems to me that when we turn on a tap, when we take a sip from a drinking fountain, when we give the kids a glass of water before tucking them into bed, we are placing our trust in our leaders to protect us. We are trusting our leaders to make sure that Ontario water won't make us sick and won't kill us. That is a sacred trust. This government and its leadership have violated that trust. This government failed to do its job. It failed the very first test of leadership.

How else does a government show leadership? By listening and then acting. This government was warned time and