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

June 13, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-Jun-13 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 13 June 2001 Mercredi 13 juin 2001

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

CAMPING

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

ONTARIO'S PROMISE

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

AIR QUALITY

AVIATION PROGRAM

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

AND TRADES

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON ESTIMATES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

569924 ONTARIO LIMITED ACT, 2001

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA GESTION

DES ÉLÉMENTS NUTRITIFS

MPP COMPENSATION REFORM ACT

(ARM'S LENGTH PROCESS), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 PORTANT RÉFORME

DE LA RÉTRIBUTION DES DÉPUTÉS

(PROCESSUS SANS LIEN

DE DÉPENDANCE)

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

BREACH OF SECURITY

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

AIR QUALITY

VISITORS

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

AIR QUALITY

PARAMEDIC SERVICES

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

INVESTIGATION INTO CHILD ABUSE

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Wednesday 13 June 2001 Mercredi 13 juin 2001

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): Mike Harris says that it's a shoddy ploy for our volunteer community boards at the community care

access centres to get more money to provide critically needed home care and nursing care services for our seniors, frail and elderly and those individuals released from our hospitals quicker and

sicker than ever before.

His own government-commissioned report clearly states that all of our access centres across the province lack money and have staff shortages and excessively long

waiting lists for our parents, grandparents and loved ones requiring health and personal care so that they can stay in their homes longer at a much lower cost than if they were institutionalized in

hospitals or long-term-care facilities.

Mike Harris is providing $175 million less than the government actually paid for home care and nursing services last year. His actions clearly show that as far

as he's concerned, it's more important to provide a $2.2-billion corporate tax cut, cut hospital budgets, slash home care and the universality of drug benefits programs for seniors than to put

adequate, much-needed funding to help our incontinent seniors and to bathe and dress our frail elderly who want the dignity of living in their own homes.

Premier, are you now inventing and continuing a crisis in home care as well so that you can destabilize our precious health care system as you did to our public

education system?

As my leader, Dalton McGuinty, said yesterday, "The only thing that is shoddy here is Mike Harris's continuing disrespect for the people of Ontario."

CAMPING

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Today I rise in the House to recognize a local non-profit camp for youth that has been operated since 1993 in

Northumberland by Joe and Christine Schur of Dartford. Under their stewardship, some 22 acres of land have been transformed into four beautiful campsites that can accommodate up to 150 people. With

help from local service clubs, there are now 10 buildings located on the campground as well as indoor camping for up to 40 campers. Many groups have had the opportunity to use this land, such as

Scouts Canada, Girl Guides, 4H and other youth groups. It provides opportunities for youth to learn through experience in an outdoor setting.

This past weekend was the annual Warkworth scouting camp, where 75 beavers, cubs, scouts and venturers were at the camp. The weekend is always a tremendous event

that I've had the honour of attending over the years. I always appreciate meeting the youth and enjoying the activities of the weekend.

This year the highlights of the weekend were a visit from the folks and animals from Jungle Cat World to enhance the African theme, a 100-foot waterslide, a

church service and the annual banquet. Joe and Christine Schur have been wonderful supporters of youth over the years, and I commend them for their hard work and their dedication to operating this

non-profit facility.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): My statement is to drive home to Mike Harris the reality faced by seniors and their families who require

home care in Sarnia-Lambton.

Ivan Morrison was ill. He had vascular dementia, diabetes and heart disease. His daughter sold her home to live with her dad in order to care for him. She also

worked as a nurse in the local hospital and requested home care for her father. All that was provided was two hours a day.

In April, Ivan was forced into hospital because there was just not enough home care, and the family could not keep up with the father's needs. The hospital kept

him only for a short period and, because of lack of home care, told his daughter to look for a nursing home or else be forced to pay for the hospital stay.

The family and Ivan just wanted enough home care to keep him at home. Instead, Ivan was put into a nursing home in Forest, which was about an hour of travel time

away. Ivan Morrison didn't want to go away from his family, his daughter didn't want to put him into a nursing home, but there was not enough home care provided by the CCAC to keep him in his

home.

Ivan Morrison passed away two weeks ago at the nursing home. And the Premier had the arrogance and the ignorance to suggest that seniors should just be grateful

to live in this Ontario.

ONTARIO'S PROMISE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I rise today to talk about yet another strong initiative launched by Premier Harris, as part of the government's

ongoing commitment to the children in the province of Ontario, called Ontario's Promise.

Launched last November, a series of 47 community volunteer summits are taking place in centres across Ontario. On June 22 in my riding of Durham, the Volunteer

Resource Centre for Durham Region is inviting the public to come to an Ontario's Promise session. It's at Durham College in Oshawa, from 9:00 am until 11:00 am.

Ontario's Promise is a program designed to help children and teenagers develop interests and skills that will help them build a strong foundation in their future

lives. This new and interactive program is a non-partisan project that reaches out to communities across our province and challenges our business, service clubs and individuals to get involved in

the lives of our young people.

Businesses and organizations get involved in many ways, like contributing space or resources for meetings and activities or by making financial contributions.

The Ontario government has committed $2 million in annual funding over the next three years.

The five promises that form the basis of Ontario's Promise are as follows: a healthy start for all children; an ongoing, positive relationship with a caring

adult; a safe place that affords positive, meaningful activities outside the home; marketable skills through effective education; and an opportunity to give back to their communities.

As you know from my previous statements in the House, there is a strong, thriving community spirit in Durham region. I know that many volunteers in the area will

welcome an opportunity to learn to participate --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The member's time has expired.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): My office is inundated with calls from seniors who need home care health care. I know the government

members must be receiving the same calls. I say to the seniors of this province, this government is failing you.

We are talking about people who have made sacrifices and know what they are: the Depression, world wars. They have gone through them without complaint. It is

incomprehensible to me to think now that we have veterans in this province who are not getting the services they need.

When exactly did we lose our compassion in this province? When did we realize that seniors aren't good business? When did we realize that seniors do not fit into

a business plan? The members on this side of the House never realized that, because we respect seniors, but on that side they have become numbers in a formula.

The seniors are not asking for a free ride. They've paid for each and every one of us. What they're asking for now is that they get the services they need. The

people of Ontario are willing to pay for those services. The priority should not be a tax reduction for the American corporations operating in Ontario; the priority should be basic delivery of

services to seniors.

The seniors respect this government. The seniors are not by nature complainers. It is wrong of Mike Harris to take advantage of them on this. On behalf of the

Liberal Party: the seniors need better treatment than they are now receiving.

AIR QUALITY

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The Chair recognizes the member for --

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Toronto-Danforth.

The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry, Toronto-Danforth.

Ms Churley: That's the first time you've forgotten, Mr Speaker.

A US study just released in the latest issue of Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association makes for the first time the link between smog and heart

attacks. This is very disturbing news, given that we already know that up to 1,900 people die prematurely in Ontario each year because of smog-induced asthma and other respiratory problems.

Smog is caused by a lot of things, but what I'm going to focus on today is the 40% of smog that's caused by vehicle emissions. Yet this government continues to

refuse to fund public transportation in this province. When the government came to office in 1995, one of the first things they did was withdraw all funding for the operation of the TTC here in

Toronto and for any public transportation across the province.

The Minister of the Environment recently attended a smog summit here in Toronto and, when asked about what her government was going to do to help with the

problem, this is what she said: "In the months and weeks to come, we're going to make some announcements regarding the province's reinvestment in transit. We have made a commitment." We need that

announcement made here and now, today. Smog season has started. This is the fourth smog alert. We need the announcement today.

AVIATION PROGRAM

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): Students from St Robert Catholic High School in Thornhill were soaring high over York region last week and

reaching new heights. These students are part of an exclusive co-operative education program. St Robert was chosen as one of 10 schools across the country to participate in an aviation course and

teach students about the art of flying. The school was chosen by the Canadian Aviation Council as being suitable for development of the aviation maintenance technology program.

This program, which was implemented last September, offers students a chance to explore career possibilities in the aviation and aerospace industry. Combining

theory, in-flight lessons and an internship within the industry, students make informed decisions about their career. The in-flight experience that many of these students have received will further

their thirst for flying, as many of them had no prior interest in aviation. Because of this program, many are considering applying to post-secondary education programs in this field.

The program is also proving to be very popular, with next year's enrolment doubling. Many friends of the students think it's quite interesting and joke around,

not believing this program is actually offered in high school because it's usually only a program for college.

The program is doing a wonderful job teaching young people about a subject that not many know about. Programs such as these provide information about the

aviation industry itself and the career potential it has.

I wish the students who are part of the program the best of luck in the future.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): The Mike Harris government would rather dismiss and demean its critics than deal with the crisis we face

in health care.

Mike Harris says he suspects that the plea of community care board members to save home care services might be just a shoddy ploy to get more money. The Minister

of Health says that hospital board members are guilty of intellectual dishonesty when they say they don't have enough funding to keep the doors of their emergency rooms open. And Cancer Care

Ontario board members were accused of lying when they exposed the government's plans to shut down Cancer Care Ontario.

But the crisis in access to health care is only too real. Let me give you a few examples of what's happening, cases that came to my office just yesterday.

There was the heart attack victim who was treated initially in the walk-in centre that Queensway hospital has become and who was transferred to

Markham-Stouffville because there was no bed for him in a Toronto hospital.

There was the 26-year-old Ontario woman who was seriously injured while on a visit to Thailand three weeks ago who was waiting to be brought home until a bed

could be found for her.

There's a 54-year-old woman in my home riding who is physically disabled and has now been diagnosed with cancer. She cannot get out of hospital because she

cannot manage with only two hours of home care.

I received a letter from a recent graduate of the University of Toronto, a specialist in cancer care, who will leave the province if there's no clear commitment

to the provision of cancer treatment in this province.

There was another letter from a man who waited so long in an emergency room that he checked himself out and decided to take a chance that his chest pains would

go away, and there were the paramedics here with stories of the critical care they're providing while they wait in hospital driveways.

That was just yesterday, and it is just a sample. It is truly shoddy political posturing to deny the reality of what's happening to people who need care.

ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

AND TRADES

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I'm proud to stand before the House today to announce the tabling of my resolution, a resolution to

streamline government bureaucracy, to strip away the red tape that stunts our province's growth and to open doors to more opportunities for the people of Ontario.

The Mike Harris team has already taken the steps to improve access to trades and professions. We've attracted the world's best and brightest to Ontario by

keeping our economy strong. We have committed to helping skilled newcomers enter our labour force quickly and easily. We have improved access to education and training opportunities for immigrants

and citizens.

I can go on for hours about the many initiatives our team had the common sense to introduce; however, we must never stop looking forward. We would hurt our

communities and ourselves if we remained satisfied with the status quo. That is why I have chosen to table a resolution to encourage our team to look at the issue of access to trades once more.

My resolution, if passed, would appoint a special adviser to look at the big picture to find new and innovative ways to cut through red tape and make access to

trades simpler for all skilled immigrants. We need the continuation to encourage growth in our province and to create the best Ontario in which to live, work and raise a family. I am honoured to be

part of a team that has nurtured strong leadership for a strong Ontario.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The Chair recognizes the member for Niagara Centre on a point of privilege.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Thank you kindly. The Speaker will know that I served notice upon the Clerk and Speaker earlier today, and I

have a copy, sir, if a page will deliver this to you, of my submissions and the material referred to and relied upon. To the Speaker, please, Dustin.

Pursuant to standing order 21, I rise today on this point of privilege, and I ask you to take very seriously the very important issue I am bringing before you

and this Assembly.

The government likes to talk about accountability and responsibility. The terms "accountability" and "responsibility" are really the essence of this point of

privilege. I submit to you that the government stands in contempt of this Legislature by way of political interference with the disclosure afforded under the Freedom of Information and Protection

of Privacy Act.

I bring to your attention comments made by Information and Privacy Commissioner Ann Cavoukian when she released her annual report. Ms Cavoukian condemned the

government's "contentious issues management process," which she describes as "a clandestine policy of flagging any politically sensitive freedom of information requests such as those from

journalists, opposition politicians or special-interest groups." She went on to explain that the number of responses to politically sensitive requests that are delayed beyond the 30-day deadline

have doubled since 1999.

I would ask you to refer to

section 4.1 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which clearly states that the Information and Privacy

Commissioner, in this case Ann Cavoukian, is "an officer of the Legislature." As an officer of this Parliament, Ms Cavoukian is mandated to ensure that ministries and government bodies comply with

the terms of freedom of information legislation.

Speaker, I submit to you that the government's obstruction -- and I put to you that it is an obstruction -- of freedom of information requests constitutes

contempt of this Legislature. Please let me clarify the term "contempt."

The 22nd edition of Erskine May defines contempt in this way: "Generally speaking, any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in

the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such

results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence." That's at page 108.

Erskine May goes on to outline contempt as it applies to obstructing officers of either House: "It is a contempt to obstruct or molest those employed by or

entrusted with the execution ... of their duty." The text continues, "Both Houses will treat as contempts, not only acts directly tending to obstruct their officers in the execution of their duty,

but also any conduct which may tend to deter them from doing their duty." That's at page 125.

The Canadian House of Commons Procedure and Practice text by Marleau and Montpetit also speaks to this issue in its reference to a ruling by then-Speaker

M me Sauvé in 1980, which said, "While our privileges are defined, contempt of the House has no limits. When new ways are found to interfere with our proceedings, so too will the

House, in appropriate cases, be able to find that a contempt of the House has occurred." That reference is at page 67.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner cites a government policy we have never seen but that the government has used countless times to avoid its

accountability and responsibility. Speaker, this is a deadly serious allegation. Ms Cavoukian has told us in her own words how, time and time again, this government has wilfully obstructed her

work, and, I put to you, our rights individually and collectively as members of this Legislature. I know exactly what she was talking about, Speaker, because all of us on this side of the House

and, I'm sure, many of the journalists in the gallery, have had the same experience.

In a ruling on May 18, 2000, concerning the release of private information in which the Honourable Gary Carr found that a prima facie case of contempt had been

made, he referred to

section 46 of the Legislative Assembly Act, which defines the jurisdiction of this House to inquire into and punish, as breaches of privilege or contempt, a range of matters,

including "assaults upon or interference with an officer of the assembly while in the execution of his or her duty."

Speaker, I submit to you that the government's actions have prejudiced the proceedings of this House. On many occasions, requests under freedom of information

that have been made by members of the New Democratic Party caucus have been interfered with, delayed or denied. There is a direct connection between our ability to gain access to information and

our ability to perform our duties in this House, in this chamber. I ask you, Speaker: how may we, as members of the opposition, act responsibly and accountably when we are denied access to vital

information?

Let me cite a few examples for you, Speaker, just to make my point.

(1) On March 27, 2001, New Democrats submitted a request for all documents related to the expert panel review of specialty geriatric services. We were told we

would get a response by April 29, 2001. That date came and went, the deadline was ignored, and 78 days after our request, we're still waiting for our answer.

(2) On April 18, 2001, we submitted a request for all copies of correspondence between Cancer Care Ontario and the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care on the

subject of the after-hours treatment clinic at Sunnybrook hospital. We were told we would get a response by May 25, 2001. That date came and went. On seven separate occasions we contacted ministry

staff, who have yet to reply in writing as to why the deadline was ignored. Fifty-six days after our request, we're still waiting for our answer.

(3) On February 23, 2001, we submitted a request for a copy of the report submitted to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care on an investigation into

allegations that Ontario residents with brain injuries were abused while being treated at US hospitals under OHIP. Incredibly, ministry staff informed us that they did not open the correspondence

until May 1, 2001, 66 days later. They didn't open the correspondence for 66 days. That's what they told us. We were promised a response by May 31, 2001. The May 31 deadline obviously came and

went. We are still waiting for our answer 110 days after our request.

(4) On September 13, 2000, we requested a copy of the report entitled Patient Travel Assistant Programs in Ontario in the possession of the Ministry of Health

and Long-Term Care. We requested this information because we believe the report documents the discrimination against northern cancer patients and the inadequate northern health travel grant set up

by the Conservative government. Nine months, 273 days, after this request the New Democrats are still waiting for an answer.

(5) On February 8, 2001, we requested the billing information for the legal representation for the former Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Tony

Clement, regarding his libel lawsuit against Dalton McGuinty. We have never been informed whether we can access those records. New Democrats are still waiting for our answer 125 days after our

request.

(6) On April 6, 2001, we requested the legal fees charged to Ontario taxpayers above and beyond the half-million dollars Premier Harris has already spent with

respect to the civil lawsuit filed by the family of Dudley George, who was killed at Ipperwash Provincial Park in 1995. The 30-day deadline was ignored, and 61 days after our request we were denied

access to the information and we have now appealed to the privacy commissioner.

(7) On March 28, 2001, we requested a copy of the final report of the special task force review of sexual abuse of patients by regulated health professionals.

We received no response within the required 30 days. We are still waiting for an answer 77 days after our request.

(8) On May 1, 2001, New Democrats requested the cost of the Ministry of Natural Resources' provision of material such as CDs, calendars, posters and brochures

to 103 MPPs to celebrate Earth Week and Ontario's Living Legacy. We're still waiting 36 days later.

It is our respectful submission that the government has displayed and conducted itself with contempt time and time again. It is our submission as well that the

contempt is aggravated and that the repetition of the conduct confirms the contemptuous nature. It cannot be argued or suggested and the only inference one can draw is that this is specific

behaviour by the government that has indeed been determined by the policy Ms Cavoukian speaks of.

As former Speaker Stockwell stated in his January 22, 1997, ruling on government advertising, "It is not enough for yet another Speaker to issue yet another

warning or caution." I submit to you, sir, that a mere warning, a toothless warning, will have no impact on this government's contemptuous and arrogant behaviour.

As outlined in Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, on page 221, the responsibility of the Speaker is to determine if "the evidence on its face as

outlined by the member is sufficiently strong for this House to be asked to debate the matter and to send it to a committee to investigate."

With respect, Speaker, I believe that we have made that case, that we have made the strongest of cases, and I call upon you to find this government in prima

facie contempt.

The Acting Speaker: I'd like to thank the member for Niagara Centre for his presentation. Because it is similar to a notice of a point of

privilege by the member for Elgin-Middlesex-London, I'd like to take his presentation now, if I could.

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I rise in accordance with

section 21(

c) of the standing orders to raise a point of privilege.

It will be my submission that various officials in the government have perpetrated a contempt of this Legislature through a systematic program that is impeding

and obstructing members of this House, myself included, and an officer of this House.

What is it to be in contempt of Parliament? Let me quickly cite two references from the 22nd edition of Erskine May.

Quoting from page 108 of Erskine May on contempt, "Generally speaking, any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the

performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such

results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence." It is clear what authority is indicated in that case.

On page 125 of Erskine May, 22nd edition, under the subtitle "Obstructing Officers of Either House," I read: "It is a contempt to obstruct or molest those

employed by or entrusted with the execution of the orders of either House while in the execution of their duty."

Further on it is indicated, "Both Houses will treat as contempts, not only acts directly tending to obstruct their officers in the execution of their duty, but

also any conduct which may tend to deter them from doing their duty."

In the recently published House of Commons Procedure and Practice, by Marleau and Montpetit, it is similarly affirmed that it is such a contempt of Parliament

to stand in the way of an officer of Parliament who's doing his or her duty. Let me cite one reference from Marleau and Montpetit on page 67. This refers to the ruling of M me Sauvé,

who was Speaker in 1980, when she wrote, "While our privileges are defined, contempt of the House has no limits.

"When new ways are found to interfere with our proceedings, so too will the House, in appropriate cases, be able to find that a contempt of the House has

occurred."

The case of privilege I rise upon stems from the annual report of the Legislature tabled yesterday. It is from the Information and Privacy Commissioner, Dr Ann

Cavoukian, an officer of this House.

Section 4 of the relevant statute, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, states very clearly that the Information and Privacy Commissioner

is "an officer of the Legislature." She is appointed on an address from this Parliament, and she has duties set out for her or any office-holder in that position in the legislation. So my first

point is that the Information and Privacy Commissioner is clearly an officer of this Legislature.

The mandate of the commissioner is in part to ensure that government organizations comply with the act. Dr Cavoukian expresses her concerns that there may be a

systematic problem, unrelated to the requirements of the act, that is contributing to the relatively low compliance rates within the provincial sector. It clearly states her belief in the existence

of a "contentious issues management" process within the government for dealing with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act requests. This process identifies those making access

requests under the act and singles out the media, interest groups and members of this House for obstruction and delay.

I submit that the government is systematically impeding and obstructing the performance of my functions and duties as a member of this House. Dr Cavoukian

cites a significant number of "deemed refusal" appeals and other appeals where access decisions have been delayed, due at least in part to the apparent conflict between the statutory obligations

provided by the act and the contentious issues management process. I submit, based on her report as an officer of this House, that I believe I am speaking on behalf of many members of this

Legislature.

I will cite just one example of this obstruction from a freedom of information and protection of privacy request filed by me on January 5, 2001, six months

ago. On that day I requested documents referred to and displayed by a Ministry of Agriculture biosolids specialist at the Southwest Agricultural Conference held at Ridgetown College. They are

training manuals for the utilization of biosolids on agricultural lands, printed two years ago, prior to the Walkerton disaster. My request was transferred, just like silos on a farm, from one to

another, from the Ministry of Agriculture to the Ministry of the Environment, who denied access to these documents.

I appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner on March 12 of this year and sought mediation. During mediation, the government denied access to the

documents on the grounds that they were not found to be acceptable, and then found that the grounds of appeal were strong enough to allow a full inquiry into the matter. At the same time, the

government argued that the documents did not require to be released since they would be publicly published by April 30, 2001. Well, April 30, 2001, has come and gone. I will note for the Speaker

that they have yet to be published to this date.

It is my contention that these delays are due to the political interference cited by the privacy commissioner, particularly the process of the contentious

issues management. Further, I contend that the Information and Privacy Commissioner is also being denied and obstructed due to the existence of this contentious issues management process.

The report by the commissioner states, "Our office also encounters conflict with the contentious issues management process even after a substantive decision

has been made to a requester and an appeal has been filed. Mediation efforts are often protracted due to the multiple layers of approvals and sign-offs required for contentious issues requests."

Finally, the commissioner mentions in her report that she has not been provided with the details or copies of any policy documents related to this process.

I have provided to you copies of a Ministry of Community and Social Services Web site which describes the contentious issues reports. These are filed when a

member of the media, interest group or a member of this House files a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I also provided copies of the Ministry of

Transportation Web site, which divides requests into priority levels if one is of a contentious issue.

This is a core issue of access to information and access to truth. As the member of Parliament for Elgin-Middlesex-London, I take very seriously my role to

represent the concerns and issues of my constituents. The issue of spreading biosolids on agricultural land and the government actively encouraging this practice is a serious issue of public health

and safety. It is of utmost importance that I be able to expeditiously access government information in order to adequately perform my duties as a member of this Legislature and as a representative

to my constituents. I believe this demonstrates a systematic program within the government that is impeding and obstructing members of this House and an officer of this House.

I submit to you, Mr Speaker, that that does constitute a prima facie case of contempt. I submit these matters to you for your urgent and serious consideration

and trust that you will agree with me that there is a prima facie case of contempt.

This is only one of many outstanding requests that my colleagues and I have at this time. I'll tell you and my colleagues today that I will be expecting, in

that event, that this House will take up this important matter on a priority basis.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): I rise to respond to the points from our two opposition parties about this

matter. First of all, I think it's fair to say that all members of this House support the legislation, support the guidelines that are there to protect the public, are there to ensure that

appropriate information is released in a fashion that is timely, that is fair, that answers to legitimate requests, not only of members of this House but to members of the media, for example.

That's important, because everyone quite recognizes the importance of that process, the importance of that legislation, the importance of the good work she has

been doing as commissioner on behalf of the citizens. But I would have to differ very much with --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: I want to be able to hear every word that is said.

Government House leader.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would have to object very strongly to the honourable member's characterization that somehow or other

something has occurred to obstruct, because nothing could be further from the truth. There is no question that information is being released. It is being released according to guidelines. I

appreciate that the commissioner is concerned about the timeline, the timeliness that has taken in some circumstances. It's a concern that the government shares. The government has taken steps to

try and make sure that it is not happening continually like this.

For example, in her own report she says, "Commitments to performance standards, including response times in dealing with requests, were, for the first time,

included in deputy ministers' performance contracts" last year. "This is an extremely important first step.... Deputy ministers must now account for ministry performance on FOI programs as part of

the annual appraisal process with the Secretary of Cabinet." So there is certainly an awareness that timeliness has been a concern and we are taking steps to make sure that that is indeed dealt

with.

I would also like to point out that the number of requests has increased substantially. Many more requests are coming in. Some of those requests are

exceedingly complex. There is certainly -- and one would hope -- due diligence exercised in making sure the information that goes out is accurate. I don't think anyone here would want the civil

servants who are in charge of this process to shirk on that due diligence. They are indeed doing that and that information is going out according to the guidelines. So there's not a question of

obstruction at all. Timeliness, yes; we're taking steps to fix that.

The other thing that I know has concerned people and concerned members here is the question that somehow or other there is some sort of clandestine thing going

on here. First of all, there is nothing clandestine about the process that is used to deal with freedom of information requests. The guidelines are very clear. The process is very clear. There is a

process by which cabinet office is involved and ministers' offices are involved. That has been very open. It was something the Liberal government set up. It is something the NDP government

formalized. It is something this government continues to follow. To use the meaning of the word "clandestine," there is no secret, private or concealed process here whatsoever.

As a matter of fact, the freedom of information commissioner has also said, "We don't object to them being alerted to these matters. We understand that cabinet

needs to be notified of what may be coming down the road." We've had other comments that have been made in speeches and remarks from the commissioner's office, because they quite recognize that

this process is important. For example, "There is recognition that cabinet office's issues management process is designed to not interfere with the process of FOI requests within the time limits

specified in the act, and that the process is designed as a `heads-up' and not a `sign off.'"

They also say, "We recognize that the Ontario cabinet office's contentious issues management process was designed so as not to interfere with the

administration of access requests within the time limits specified in the act." Again, "It is intended to be a heads-up process not a sign-off process." I think that's a very important distinction,

Mr Speaker, that you need to be aware of.

Also, just by way of background, the issues management process for freedom of information requests was first implemented by the Liberals, who centralized it in

the cabinet office in 1988 -- many years ago. The NDP kept it in a November 1990 memo to all deputy ministers from the secretary of cabinet, which read, "Ministries will also be receiving freedom

of information requests of a contentious nature and I would ask that these issues be reported to the current issues unit," the personnel in the current issues unit.

This is a process that has been very open for all three governments. It's a process that has continued to be followed. It is a process that ensures

information. There is due diligence. The time is taken in some of those requests to make sure it's accurate, to make sure information is being released so that it is responding to what the law and

the guidelines say.

The other thing I should say is that my colleague the Chair of Management Board, David Tsubouchi, has indeed written to all his colleagues about ensuring that

that process is timely, to make sure we are doing what we can to speed up where we can. But as I say, there has been a 200% increase in those requests. They are larger; they are more complex. I

think due diligence is extremely important.

With due respect, I would say to you, Mr Speaker, that the points made by the opposition, the allegations made by the opposition, are indeed not accurate and

not a reflection of what is really going on, and I submit that for your consideration, sir.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. There has been a very thorough and complete presentation on these points of privilege, and the response. Please

be assured that the Chair will take all of those submissions into consideration in reporting back in due course.

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege in accordance with

section 21(

c) of the standing orders to raise a

matter that I consider a very serious breach of democratic process and disdain for the members of this Legislature. I ask the House's indulgence to make my case.

My case of privilege involves a sad contempt of the Minister of Transportation for the rules of process under which this great institution should operate. I

refer to the minister's precipitous meeting last Saturday with Ministry of Transportation workers to force them to accept a job without any security with some unknown company or lose their jobs.

Yet the legislative authority for this action, Bill 65,

an act improving customer service for road users, has merely been introduced for first reading. Bill 65 is currently at the second reading

stage only in the legislative process. There has been no debate on second reading of this bill at all.

Despite the fact that this bill has not received the proper attention of this Legislature, has not received second or third reading or royal assent, the

Minister of Transportation has proceeded to disenfranchise 750 government workers. Though this is apart from the contempt case I wish to cite, I find it shocking that they have been given five days

to make a choice about their futures and those of their families, in the complete absence of any information.

But my point is that the Minister of Transportation has done this without legislative authority. I believe that constitutes a case of contempt of this

Legislative Assembly. Let me remind the House of Erskine May's definition of "contempt." Let me quote from page 108 of the 22nd edition: "Generally speaking, any act or omission which obstructs or

impedes either House of Parliament ... in the discharge of" its "duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even" when "there is no

precedent of the offence."

Clearly, considering the status of this bill's progress, Bill 65 is far from being a fait accompli. In fact, given the ministry's inability to hit its targets

for the RFQ process, and every other target set in connection with the privatizing and outsourcing of driver licensing, I would find it highly doubtful that Bill 65 will even pass before the House

recesses for the summer.

Speaker, I would refer to a previous ruling by Speaker Stockwell on January 22, 1997. In that case, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing had issued a

pamphlet dealing with the government's program for reforming municipal government in Metropolitan Toronto. Two members indicated that the advertising occurred in advance of consideration by the

House of the legislative measures that would be necessary to implement the reform agenda and in advance of public hearings on these measures. Speaker Stockwell found that a prima facie case of

contempt had been established. In his ruling he said about the brochures, and I quote:

"In my opinion, they convey the impression that the passage of the requisite legislation was not necessary or was a foregone conclusion, or that the assembly

and the Legislature had a pro forma, tangential, even inferior role in the legislative and law-making process and, in doing so, they appear to diminish the respect that is due to this House. I say

in all candour that a reader of that document could be left with an incorrect impression about how parliamentary democracy works in Ontario, an impression that undermines respect for our

parliamentary institutions."

That was Speaker Stockwell's ruling. I think it is a precedent for the precipitous actions taken by the Minister of Transportation with respect to Bill 65.

There is one other precedent I would like to talk about, Speaker, and then I will conclude.

On November 27, 2000, Speaker Carr talked about a point of privilege that was raised concerning the contempt of the Public Appointments Secretariat because it

had acted on legislation that had not been passed by recruiting members for a board. The Speaker referred to past precedents where previous Speakers had ruled that the public service has a

responsibility to prepare for the possible passage of legislation. He referred to a ruling by Speaker Edighoffer on December 20, 1989. That Speaker said, and I quote, "It is perfectly valid for the

public service to proceed with plans based on a bill that is already in the system in order to be able to act swiftly, once the bill becomes law."

I urge you, Speaker, to recognize the difference between that situation and what we have before us now. It is one thing to allow the government to prepare.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, "prepare" means to make oneself ready for something, to be mentally ready or fit. It is an entirely different thing for the minister to force individuals to sign

their rights away, to force workers to give up their liberties and privileges irrevocably, before this legislation has passed, before even it has had second or third reading and the debate that the

members of this Legislature and the people of this province have a right to expect. Then, after that process is complete, it finally needs royal assent from the Lieutenant-Governor that makes the

bill become law.

The implications of this bill will have a serious and lasting impact on road safety in this province. The Minister of Transportation must give this bill full

public hearings before it passes. He must listen to the experts who want to warn him that this bill could pose a serious safety threat to the driving public, just as the Minister of the Environment

should have listened to the chief medical officer of health on another issue where the government failed to ensure accountability from the private sector to ensure safe drinking water.

It is an abuse of the privilege of the members of this Legislature to allow irrevocable decisions to be made before a bill has completed its legislative cycle

and become law, just as it is total folly -- and I will say this even more strongly -- it's undemocratic for public policy to be pursued in the absence of full public debate.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, and through you to the honourable member, as the honourable

member should well know, there are specific requirements in the contracts of employees that clearly stipulate that procedures must be followed, the timelines for those procedures when changes are

even being contemplated, that information and notice must be given to staff. In this case, with the transfer of the driver examination services, this is indeed the case. The OPSEU agreement

requires that staff whose jobs could be -- could be -- affected by any transfer of functions must be advised, and there's a timeline in place and a process in place.

The minister in this case is doing good government, is following his obligations, his responsibilities. He's following the obligations in the contract. I'm

sure the honourable member would be the first one to stand and complain if this government did not follow what the collective agreement is clearly stipulating. So I do not agree that there is any

such evidence for the case that he is making.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): I thank the two members for their presentation. The Chair will consider those submissions in giving its

response in due course.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the seventh report of the standing committee on

government agencies. Pursuant to standing order 106(e), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I beg leave to present a report on Agricorp from the standing committee on public accounts and

move the adoption of its recommendations.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Gerretsen has presented the committee's report and moves the adoption of its recommendations. Does

the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Gerretsen: Since this is the first report issued by the public accounts committee based on the 2000 report of the Provincial Auditor, I

would first of all like to thank the Provincial Auditor for his involvement. I'd like to thank our clerk, Tonia Grannum, and Ray McLellan, the research officer, as well as all of the members on the

committee from both sides of the House.

This is a unanimous report in which the committee basically makes seven recommendations. If I could just touch on the two highlights, it states that Agricorp

should prepare regular reports for the board of directors on its new accountability mechanisms to safeguard the integrity of the investment strategy. It should introduce internal fund

administration safeguards to ensure the integrity of its funds. Finally, it should report to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs on the planned improvements to corporate governance

to be made through the restructuring of the board of directors.

I hope that all of these recommendations will be accepted by the ministry.

With that, I move adjournment of the debate.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Gerretsen moves adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

It is carried.

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON ESTIMATES

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): Pursuant to standing order 59(

a) and 60(a), I beg leave to present a report from the standing

committee on estimates, on the estimates selected and not selected for consideration by the standing committee.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Mr Kennedy, from the standing committee on estimates, presents the committee's report as follows:

Pursuant to standing order 59, your committee has selected the estimates --

Interjections: Dispense.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Dispense? We will dispense.

Pursuant to standing order 60(b), the report of the committee is deemed to be received and the estimates of the ministries and offices named therein as not

being selected for consideration by the committee are deemed to be concurred in.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

569924 ONTARIO LIMITED ACT, 2001

Mr Parsons moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr19,

An Act to revive 569924 Ontario Limited.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? It is carried.

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

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA GESTION

DES ÉLÉMENTS NUTRITIFS

Mr Coburn moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 81,

An Act to provide standards with respect to the management of materials containing nutrients used on lands, to provide for the making of regulations

with respect to farm animals and lands to which nutrients are applied, and to make related amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 81, Loi prévoyant des normes à l'égard de la

gestion des matières contenant des éléments nutritifs utilisées sur les biens-fonds, prévoyant la prise de règlements à l'égard des animaux d'élevage et

des biens-fonds sur lesquels des éléments nutritifs sont épandus et apportant des modifications connexes à d'autres lois.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? It is carried.

The minister may make a brief statement. Do you wish to do that now or under ministers' statements?

Hon Brian Coburn (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): Under ministers' statements, thank you.

MPP COMPENSATION REFORM ACT

(ARM'S LENGTH PROCESS), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 PORTANT RÉFORME

DE LA RÉTRIBUTION DES DÉPUTÉS

(PROCESSUS SANS LIEN

DE DÉPENDANCE)

Mrs Ecker, on behalf of Mr Tsubouchi, moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 82,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act to provide an arm's length process to determine members' compensation / Projet de loi 82, Loi modifiant

la

Loi sur l'Assemblée législative pour établir un processus sans lien de dépendance permettant de fixer la rétribution des députés.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1429 to 1434.

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

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Bartolucci, Rick

Beaubien, Marcel

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Cleary, John C.

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Duncan, Dwight

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Gravelle, Michael

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Smitherman, George

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed?

Nays

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Hampton, Howard

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 62; the nays are 7.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Does the minister have a brief statement?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): The proposed legislation very simply ensures that in future, salaries paid

to members of the provincial Parliament will be determined by an impartial third party, Ontario's Integrity Commissioner. At such intervals as he or she considers appropriate, the commissioner

shall review the salary paid to members and determine the appropriate salary.

I believe this proposed legislation will ensure that the process is fair to taxpayers, fair to MPPs and that the process is at arm's length from the

politicians.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): I move that the following amendments be made to the membership of the

following committees: that Mr Mazzilli replaces Mr Kells on the standing committee on government agencies, that Mr Kells replaces Mr Mazzilli on the standing committee on regulations and private

bills and that Mr Wettlaufer and Madam Boyer be added to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

Hon Brian Coburn (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): A few moments ago, I introduced for first reading the proposed nutrient

management legislation. I am pleased now to be able to elaborate on its goals. I'm also privileged to speak on behalf of my colleague the Minister of the Environment. Just as we've worked in

partnership to develop this proposed legislation, we'll continue to work together to ensure that its implementation strengthens Ontario's position as a leader in environmental stewardship.

If passed, the proposed legislation would further the government of Ontario's Operation Clean Water. It would put in place preventive measures to address the

effects of agricultural practices, especially as they relate to land-applied materials containing nutrients, and protect the environment and quality of life for all residents in this great

province. And it would provide the clear and consistent rules so necessary for farmers, like all businesses, to make sound investment decisions.

The bill we have introduced today follows logically from the consultations conducted in the winter and summer of 2000 by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and

Rural Affairs and the Ministry of the Environment. During those public consultations, we heard from farmers, rural residents, municipalities and environmental groups. They all told us the same

thing: there is a province-wide need for clear, consistent and enforceable standards and regulations for all nutrients to ensure that our agri-food industry and our rural communities continue to

thrive together and that our natural resources of land and water are protected.

Most Ontario farmers are good environmental stewards and good neighbours. As with any business, though, there are risks, and they need to be properly managed.

Nutrients are needed to grow our crops. Manure, biosolids and other materials have beneficial properties but also hazards such as pathogens, and so these materials must be well managed.

The proposed legislation, in fact, builds upon the best management practices that the vast majority of Ontario's producers have worked to develop and have

already adopted voluntarily. Farming practices have changed dramatically in recent years as economics demand and technology encourage ever-enlarging farming operations. Rural Ontario has changed

just as dramatically. For the first time in decades, more people are moving out of the cities and into the countryside, and they are increasingly interested in, and concerned about, their

environment and seeing it as a key element in the quality of all our lives.

What we are now proposing will address those concerns, safeguard our environment and ensure continued prosperity for our agri-food sector, a key contributor to

our economy. This proposed legislation will make the voluntary best practices followed by the majority of farmers mandatory practices for all farmers in Ontario. We intend to achieve this goal

through a phased approach. All farms would ultimately be governed by new regulated farm practice standards. First, new standards would immediately be established for the new construction or

expansion of large livestock operations. These standards would be applied to existing larger animal operations within three years, and appropriate standards for all other farms would be phased in

over five years.

Specifically, we propose to take the following steps. We propose to develop, in partnership with our stakeholders and the Ministry of the Environment, strong

new standards for all land-applied materials containing nutrients relating to agriculture, including livestock manure, commercial fertilizer, municipal biosolids, septage, industrial pulp and paper

sludge. We propose to make nutrient management plans mandatory. We propose to build on the work already done by some municipalities and establish a registry system that keeps a record of

applications of materials containing nutrients, focusing initially on biosolids and manure. We propose to require the certification of commercial applicators applying those materials. We propose to

ban the land application of untreated septage over a five-year period.

We propose to establish and deliver the required education, training and certification programs. Because we understand that enforcement is the key to the

success of this initiative, we propose to put in place highly trained provincial inspectors who are knowledgeable in agriculture and the environment to enforce the new standards. Finally, because

we realize that this is an extremely complex issue, we will ensure our many stakeholders have an opportunity to comment on this framework. We know just how important it is to every one of us who

lives in this great province to make sure we do this right.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs will continue to focus on research that will move agricultural industry ever closer to our goals. We will

make continuous improvement a priority: to study and understand the challenging new technologies and new approaches to nutrient management; to continue to update our standards and our expertise;

and to transfer this knowledge to the farmers of this province.

I am confident that if the proposed legislation is approved and we are allowed to follow this course of action, we will enhance the reputation and the

competitiveness of our agri-food industry. We will protect the quality of life we all value so highly and Ontario will continue to be a leader in environmental stewardship.

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): This legislation has been a long time in coming. I looked over and saw the former Minister of

Agriculture with a smile on his face and I think this is some vindication for former Minister Hardeman and his efforts in dealing with this legislation. People across this province -- farmers,

municipalities and the public at large -- have been calling for this legislation for a long time. It was promised by the former minister last fall and finally we see that legislation introduced

today.

It is legislation that is of extreme importance to the farmers, the municipalities and the public of this province. It's imperative that this bill go to public

hearings in rural communities across this province, because this is a piece of legislation that isn't made-in-Toronto legislation. This is a piece of legislation that is going to affect rural

Ontario, and having hearings here at Queen's Park is not the way to do it. You need to go province-wide with this.

The minister has committed to consult on the regulations, and I think it's very important. The bill is one thing, but the details, as we always know, are in

the regulations. It's imperative that as the consultations begin on this legislation, we also see those regulations in front of us. We need to see an overall package so that the MPPs and the entire

public have an opportunity to provide full input into this most vital and important piece of legislation.

It's good to see representatives here from a wide cross-section of agricultural commodity groups from across this province, but one thing that's glaringly

absent from this bill is the question of money. We know that as this legislation is implemented and the regulations are rolled out, there are going to have to be capital upgrades made to farming

operations across this province. We know these initiatives are going to benefit everybody in this province, yet glaringly absent is the issue of money. I hope that is something that is clearly

addressed during the public consultations. It can't all be on the backs of the farmers. Farmers, we know, are facing extremely difficult times with low commodity prices and are facing unprecedented

subsidies from other governments, be it the United States or Europe. We need to do everything we can, and I hope the minister will work with the agricultural community as this legislation

unfolds.

There are other aspects in the legislation that need to be addressed. The backgrounder talks about fees. We need to hear very clearly what these fees are all

about. Some of the timelines, I have to admit, may be of some concern. I think, as an example, that dealing with untreated septage within a five-year period is too long. I think we need to address

that issue immediately, as one only needs to read the media from across this province to see that this issue of untreated septage and biosolids is something that is in the newspapers every day.

I certainly hope the Minister of Agriculture has resources made available to him, along with the Minister of the Environment, because we know that both

ministries have been drastically cut by this government over the years. For this legislation to be properly implemented is going to require the resources, and good resources, of both of those

ministries. I hope that with the Premier and the Minister of Finance here they'll recognize the importance of this legislation in ensuring those government ministries have the dollars to back up

this legislation.

You're going to have to ensure that there's proper education in place for the staff so that they're educated in how to inspect, how to enforce and how to

monitor. It's going to be imperative that we know who is going to do this and where the staff dollars are going to come from. We definitely need to know that.

This legislation, though, we know is an investment in the health and safety of all Ontarians. I repeat, glaringly absent from this legislation is the money

needed for necessary improvements for the agricultural operations that will, in effect, protect all citizens of this province. In no way, shape or form will the Liberal Party tolerate the entire

cost to be borne on the backs of our Ontario farmers.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I would like to add to the remarks of our critic for agriculture my concerns as well that there be full

hearings on this piece of legislation so that we're aware of all of its implications. It's taken this government six years to respond to the Provincial Auditor and to the two Environment

Commissioners to come forward with legislation of this kind. It only happened after the tragedy at Walkerton that we have any movement on the part of this government toward this kind of

legislation, toward looking after these problems.

You have to recognize that farmers themselves are the people who feel the most direct impact of this particular problem. When there's an environmental problem

in the rural community, farmers themselves feel the impact of that. They have the greatest interest in seeing that this matter is addressed appropriately.

We want to see necessary staff at the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. We want to ensure that the farmers

themselves are given financial assistance to be able to implement this successfully.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I believe that people across Ontario need to know what's in this bill and what's not in it. But to get

a full appreciation of this, we have to go back over two years ago, because it was over two years ago that this government was finally dragged into doing some consultations on nutrient

management.

A report was prepared a year and a half ago, and that report was ready before the tragedy unfolded at Walkerton. We asked for that report. They government

said, "We can't provide it." They would only provide a

summary, which was so general and so vague as not to inform the public about anything. Then, as Walkerton unfolded, the government said that

they were going to use the report for legislation, and legislation would be ready for last fall. Then they got engaged in another round of consultation, which produced nothing. Finally we saw a

report which was going to throw all of the responsibility on to municipalities. Imagine, Speaker, throwing the regulation of such an important industry on to municipalities, which are already

cash-strapped and simply don't have the geographic scope in which to do a decent job.

So that wasn't successful. The government had to go back and do another round of consultations. At long last, finally, they're prepared to come forward with a

bill, but people had better read this bill carefully, because once again the devil is in the detail.

First of all, this is only enabling legislation. In fact, in itself it does nothing. It only enables the government at some future time to develop standards

for nutrient management. It says that eventually, and I use the government's own words, farms will be governed by new standards. It says that for large livestock operations, new standards won't be

in place for three years. For medium-size operations, they won't be in place for five years. What I see here is another strategy by this government to engage in yet more delay on what is a critical

problem in rural Ontario.

Then we come to enforcement. The government says that there will be provincial enforcement officers. I don't know where they're going to come from, because

they're not in the Ministry of the Environment. The government fired all of those enforcement officers, and we've heard

chapter and verse out of the Walkerton inquiry that they're not there to do

the job. Are they going to come out of OMAFRA? You can't find them there, because this government has been busy closing OMAFRA offices from one end of the province to the other and downsizing that

ministry. So the government's got to be clear: if you're serious about this, tell us where the enforcement potential is going to come from.

Farmers had better be aware, because part of the review and the administration of this will be turned over to private hands. Farmers need to know that means a

lot of new user fees, co-payment fees, administrative fees -- taxes by another name. In other words, farmers will be taxed by this government for something this government should have been doing a

long time ago.

This needs to happen, there is no doubt about that, but further three- and five-year delays and a government that doesn't have the enforcement strategy and is

going to say that all of this will be borne by new costs, new fees, new taxes on farmers, is inadequate.

We know that this issue of nutrient management is causing a great deal of controversy in rural communities. For example, in Huron-Kinloss, residents are in a

bitter fight over a proposal to build a barn to house 6,000 hogs. According to the many letters I've received on this issue, more than two million gallons of raw, untreated liquid manure from these

hogs will be spread over surrounding land every year. People who live in the area are concerned about the emergence of such large, intensive farms, and they are concerned about the safety of their

water source.

I want some assurance from the Ministry of Agriculture that that kind of operation will immediately be brought under regulation, that it won't be three years

or five years, that this is going to happen immediately. If it's not going to happen immediately, the controversy out there in rural Ontario is simply going to continue, the threats to the

environment, the threats to practices of farming are going to continue and you will have done nothing except delay, delay and delay, and create a bigger problem by so delaying. So give us some

assurances that that kind of operation is going to be brought under regulation immediately, not three or five years from now.

BREACH OF SECURITY

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: We who were in the chamber last night were shocked at the revelation by

cabinet minister Cam Jackson that there had been a breach of security, that his cabinet briefing notes had disappeared. He called upon the Sergeant at Arms for assistance. Could this House please

be advised of the course of that investigation and whether or not it has been resolved?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): It may very well be a valid point of order. I don't see the member here and I haven't heard

anything.

I just wanted to remind the members that there has been a little flaw in the cooling equipment. That very well could have an influence on the temperament of

the Speaker.

VISITORS

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: There are three friends visiting from Bermuda who are here for the first

time. I just want to acknowledge them in the gallery: Susan Clarke, Florence Ottewell and Robert Simpson. Welcome here and welcome to the Legislature.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): That is not a point of order but we do welcome guests.

ORAL QUESTIONS

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My questions are for the Premier. Premier, you advised Ontario seniors earlier in the week that

they should be thanking God that they lived in Ontario.

I want to tell you the story of Mr Edward Kenny, who lives in Windsor with his wife. He is 76 years of age. He went into the hospital on May 11 to have two

cysts lanced and drained. He was immediately discharged and was given specific instructions from the surgeon. He was told to have the wounds cleaned and repacked twice a day by a nurse.

Unfortunately, there was no home care available until the Tuesday following, four days later. So on Saturday, Sunday and Monday, Mr Kenny spent $25 for each trip into the hospital to have his

wounds cleaned and dressed.

Sadly, he was only able to have that done once a day rather than the recommended twice a day. Premier, is this the kind of care that can potentially --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Thank you. Premier?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): You know I can't comment on any individual cases, but let me say I thank God every day that I've had the

privilege of growing up in what I think is the greatest province in the greatest country on earth. I know my parents do too. The vast majority of seniors and working men and women I talk to also

feel we are very privileged. I can tell you that we value very much the contributions seniors have made to this province and to this country. When I look at the record of a 73% increase in home

care services, of total funding of $1.6 billion, and of over $1 billion in new home care spaces, we try and demonstrate that commitment and that priority over and over again.

Mr McGuinty: It gets worse. Because Mr Kenny didn't get the home care he needed, he developed an infection, and this is what his daughter

writes:

"After receiving a desperate phone call from my elderly mother, I drove to Windsor. Once being in their home only 15 minutes, I called an ambulance ... my

father ... was gasping for air, could not talk, was unable to drink, and then passed out.... Once into the emergency, it was identified that the infection had progressed ... causing a significant

strain on his heart, his oxygen intake to be depressed, his blood pressure to be elevated. He was completely unable to communicate with me.... I want to state very clearly that my mother and I came

close to losing him on Thursday evening."

Premier, would you please tell the Kenny family why they should thank you for the work you're doing on their behalf when it comes to meeting their home care

needs?

Hon Mr Harris: Whenever anybody suffers in Ontario, of course our sympathies go out to them. The system is not perfect. That's why we're

constantly trying to improve the system. For example, a number of questions have been raised about long-term-care facilities. We're funding $98.50 this year. It was $84 and frozen by the New

Democratic Party when they were in office. This is what we inherited.

Is the system perfect? Of course not. Are we constantly trying to make it better? Of course we are. Are we spending billions of dollars on health and seniors'

care? Yes. Do we continually increase it? Yes, far in excess of inflation and we do so without a penny from the Liberal government in Ottawa.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, I want to bring you the case of Mr Kenny, and I'm sure there are countless others just like his. Let me tell you a bit

more about him. Mr Kenny is a husband, a father and a grandfather. He's worked hard all his life, played by all the rules, paid his taxes and went to war for Canada. He's had a lung removed and a

knee replaced. Today he finds himself in a position where he is frail and elderly. I believe we owe it to Mr Kenny and other seniors, parents and grandparents just like him around the province to

make sure we're there for them in their time of need. You may say that all is well, but I'll leave with you the words of the daughter: "There is something very seriously wrong with the health care

system in Ontario that elderly people are receiving inferior care, are being neglected, and having their lives put at risk."

Hon Mr Harris: Nobody has ever said the system is perfect. You're talking, I think, about the Windsor area. We've increased funding to home

care in Essex from $30 million to $39 million. That's about a 25% increase, and yet I think you would argue that it is not yet enough and that even more needs to be done. As you know, we are

looking at the efficiency of our CCACs because some seem to be able to provide better and more services for the same dollars than others do. Certainly we owe it our seniors to make sure every

dollar is being spent just as efficiently and as effectively as possible. But again, there are individuals who feel the system has not served them as well as it should, and whenever that happens we

like to investigate, we like to take a look at that and, of course, that's why we're spending --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The Leader of the Opposition, second question.

AIR QUALITY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Today the smog is so thick in the city of Toronto that this

morning I couldn't see the CN Tower. Today, our emergency rooms are packed with people who cannot breathe. Seniors and children are being warned not to go outside.

During the past six years, you have abdicated your responsibility to protect our environment and to make sure the air is safe for our working families to

breathe. You have abandoned public transit in Ontario, forcing a record number of cars into gridlock on our roads, and you have actually increased the amount of pollution coming out of our

coal-fired power plants.

You are now Premier of the second-worst polluting jurisdiction in North America. That, Premier, is your legacy when it comes to the environment. What specific

responsibility are you willing to accept for the smog that our families are breathing today?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The Minister of the Environment can answer.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of the Environment): I had the pleasure this week to participate with the city of Toronto and the federal

government in the second annual smog summit. At that time I was pleased to announce that this province has successfully implemented eight of its key commitments that had been made the year

before.

We indicated at that time that we have successfully expanded the Drive Clean program, which deals with car emissions, and also we have been able to reduce

emissions by 11.5% since 1998 in the first area, including the GTA. We've also expanded the Drive Clean program into the Peterborough, Windsor and Waterloo areas, and we're looking to further

enhance that particular program in order that we can reduce car emissions. I'm also very pleased to say that during that time we have proposed emission caps for the electricity --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: You have been part of a government which has been in place in Ontario for six years, and during each of those successive six

years we've had to deal with more and more smog. The plans you're talking about now are merely tinkering around the edges. Why did you abandon public transit in the province of Ontario? Why are you

telling families that you're not going to invest in some kind of alternative? You leave them no choice but to get in their cars and be stuck in gridlock. Why do you refuse to convert Nanticoke, the

single greatest source of pollution in Canada -- I'll repeat that -- the single greatest source of pollution in Canada. Why have you not converted that to cleaner-burning natural gas? You talk

about shutting down our lawn mowers, you talk about shutting down our cars. Why don't you stop tinkering around the edges and do something that's really going to count: invest in public transit and

convert Nanticoke?

Hon Mrs Witmer: We have very aggressively taken steps in the last number of years to reduce smog in Ontario. As the member knows full well,

50% of all air pollution in this province comes across the border from the United States. Recently, we did successfully intervene in a court case in the United States to ensure that the American

states would move forward and implement plans that would reduce the amount of pollution that was coming into Ontario.

Furthermore, we have moved beyond the commitments we made at the smog summit, and I'm very pleased to say we have announced plans that would require the

Lakeview generating station to cease burning coal by the year 2005. We've also introduced a new policy for boilers and heaters which will reduce NO x emissions by 29,000 tonnes by

Mr McGuinty: Madam Minister, you well know this will be burning coal and generating tonnes and tonnes of toxic emissions for four more full

years. If you don't understand that it's a matter of our children not being able to go outside and play when the air is bad, if you don't understand that it means our seniors have to stay inside

their homes when our air is bad, then you should understand, especially as the former Minister of Health, that this bad air is costing health care over $1 billion every year. The single greatest

cause of hospital admissions for our children is asthma, which is aggravated by bad air. The single greatest cause of absenteeism in our elementary schools today is asthma, aggravated by bad air.

That's what's at stake here, Madam Minister.

You continue to tell me that all you're prepared to do is tinker around the edges. Prove to me that you are really committed. Get back into the business of

public transit in the province of Ontario and convert Nanticoke into a cleaner-burning natural gas power station.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I find it interesting that the leader opposite stands up and has only one proposal to deal with the issue of smog.

Our government recognizes, as does the federal government, as do the municipal governments that were at the smog summit on Monday, that it's going to take a

very comprehensive plan of action, and it's going to require all three levels of government. That's why our government is moving forward with the Drive Clean program. That's why our government is

moving forward to close the burning of coal at Lakeview. That's why our government has moved forward with a comprehensive regulation to ensure that the electricity sector is regulated. That's why

our government is going to expand the Drive Clean program, and that's why we recently expanded the smog patrol to 20 officers, in order that we could further reduce the pollution coming from

grossly polluting vehicles --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

VISITORS

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know you and the members on both sides of the House would want to welcome to

the Assembly parents, teachers and students from MacLeod Public School. In particular, I'd like to recognize Reinisa MacLeod --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): It's not a point of order, but we're very pleased to have them as our guests.

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Premier, well before the Walkerton tragedy, you received three warning bells: the Ministry of the

Environment 1996 business plan, a letter directly from your Minister of Health and a letter from the medical officer of health for Ontario, all warning you that cuts to the Ministry of the

Environment would increase the risk to human health and the environment.

You said here yesterday, and previously, that you didn't ignore those warnings. Well, if you didn't ignore those warnings, Premier, can you tell us exactly

what you did in response to those warnings?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): You have an interesting way of rephrasing what I said. I think what I said is a matter of record. It's also a

matter of record that it's the same question you asked yesterday. It's also a matter of record that all these issues are before Justice O'Connor, and we'll await his findings.

Mr Hampton: We talked to the counsel at the inquiry, and they tell us that the fact there's an inquiry does not stop you, here, now, where

you're accountable to the people of Ontario, from telling us. You say you didn't ignore those warnings. Well, what did you do? Did you do something? Did you talk to your Minister of Health? Did you

talk to your Minister of the Environment? If you didn't ignore the warnings, what did you do? What did you do to put in place something that would prevent the loss of life and the illness that

happened at Walkerton, Premier? I think you owe the people of Walkerton and the people of Ontario that answer.

Hon Mr Harris: I think our actions are a matter of record, and I do plan to testify before the inquiry. I do owe the people of Walkerton and

the people of Ontario that, and that's why I've offered and volunteered to do so.

Mr Hampton: Premier, maybe I can help you practise your answer. Because it's very clear in the 1996 Ministry of the Environment business plan

-- they were very clear. They said that cuts to the Ministry of the Environment by your government would increase the risk to human health and to protection of the environment. That document came

before cabinet, and we know what you did when you got that warning: you ordered those words to be taken out of that business plan, because in the next draft which came out, those words of warning

were taken out.

So, Premier, isn't it the case that the draft plan that came before cabinet had those exact words in it, but after it came before cabinet, those words were

taken out? Isn't that what you did, Premier, in response to the warnings you got?

Hon Mr Harris: You can make things up, and you can send them off to the commissioner. Listen, I appreciate your advice, and I'm sure he does

too. For our part, Justice O'Connor is undertaking a comprehensive review. I look forward to receiving his recommendations. We have indicated we want to co-operate with all the documentation that

we can and with whomever in our government he wishes to talk to. That, of course, is what we're doing.

I welcome your advice. I don't always follow it. If I did, we'd still have record numbers of people dependent upon welfare, we'd still have unemployment in the

double-digit range, we'd still have massive deficits, and we wouldn't have any money for the environment or health care or education. So you would understand why I don't always follow your

advice.

Mr Hampton: Premier, it's pretty clear what you did. You took those words of warning out and you continued down your road of more tax cuts and

more cuts to the Ministry of the Environment. That's what's got us into the tragedy we're in.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Again to the Premier, I want to ask you about your comments yesterday to the seniors of Ontario. You

said they should say, "Thank God we live in Ontario, the best province, with the best services anywhere in world." Well, I think seniors are wondering what world you're in, Premier, because report

after report has been printed which points out that seniors don't enjoy the best services.

This is just one of the reports from the Centre for Health Promotion, University of Toronto. It says, "Effects of government policy decisions on Toronto

seniors' quality of life," and then it says, "At the provincial level, policy emphasis on program reduction continues, eroding supports for seniors."

Premier, how do your square your answer with the studies out there that show that supports are being eroded, and in this particular year, you are eroding those

supports all across the province?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think no government has recognized the achievements of our seniors more than our government has. No

government has cut taxes more for low-income Ontarians, and many seniors do fall into that category. No government has done more to increase substantially funding for drug programs, for long-term

care, for home care.

When you froze the levels of funding for care in our long-term-care facilities, you didn't build one new bed, and you were spending some $600 million or $700

million less on home care, I don't know how you have the gall to stand up and ask the question.

Mr Hampton: Again, Premier, you must be on another planet, because I actually attended the openings of some of those new beds.

The issue is this: across Ontario CCACs are put in a position where they're cutting the wages paid to those health care workers. In fact, some of those home

care workers are leaving because the pay and other benefits have been cut. They're cutting services to the very seniors who are out there. They're putting together strategies that they don't like,

to cut even more services. Meanwhile, you and your government are going to hand over another $2.5 billion in bloated tax cuts to your corporate friends.

Tell us, Premier, how is it that you can't afford to help the seniors with the services they need and deserve, but you've got another $2.5 billion of bloated

tax cuts for your corporate friends?

Hon Mr Harris: You know, you can say the figure over and over, but it doesn't make it the fact. If you look at the budget this year, there are

some modest reductions in taxes that have been announced, but our biggest tax cuts have been for low-income Ontarians.

Many of our seniors have benefited immensely from getting our tax rates in order, leaving more dollars in their hands, leaving them free to make more spending

decisions, leaving them free to make more choices. Quite frankly, those tax reductions we brought in are what has led to the $15 billion in new revenue, the new people working, the new jobs, the

new corporate profits that we tax. That's why we put $5 billion more into health care, much of it consumed, of course, by our seniors.

Gosh knows, they're entitled to it. They've worked hard all their lives. I have to tell you that I believe this province of Ontario, with all its imperfections

-- nobody would say it's perfect --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Thank you.

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is for the Premier. It's about a subject he doesn't want to talk about, and that is the

complicity of his government in the Walkerton tragedy.

Your spin doctors, Mr Premier, have tried to convey the message that there was no smoking gun, that somehow you're off the hook for any blame in Walkerton. Now

we have documents submitted to the Walkerton inquiry that show your fingerprints all over that smoking gun. That comes from the testimony of Dr Richard Schabas, the medical officer of health of

Ontario, warning that after you closed down the highly regarded Ministry of the Environment labs, you were leaving the people of Ontario vulnerable because there was no notification going to the

medical officer of health from anybody, no requirement for that.

Premier, why did you ignore the clear and specific warning of the medical officer of health? Were you so obsessed with getting tax cuts for the richest people

in this province that you were prepared to ignore the warning of a highly respected individual such as Dr Schabas, or did you think that his warning, like that of the seniors' home care

administrators, was just another shoddy grab for more money?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I've answered that question, I guess, five or six times now, and if that question is one that the commission

of inquiry that we set up, that we all agreed to, is interested in, I'll be happy to answer there as well.

I appreciate the member's advice, as always. We seek advice from members in this Legislature and from the public all across the province.

Mr Bradley: I remember yesterday, Mr Premier, when you were talking about people advocating on behalf of seniors, that you said those people

were engaged in just another shoddy ploy for more money.

The officials of the Ministry of the Environment were operating some outstanding laboratories which tested drinking water in this province for years. They were

renowned around the world. You had some of the top experts on the purification of water, on the testing of water, on the evaluation of water. You had some outstanding laboratories under the

auspices of the Ontario government through the Ministry of the Environment.

You decided, when you wanted to give a tax cut to the richest people in this province, that you would just cast them aside, that you would close them down and

leave the municipalities at the mercy of only private laboratories in this province. When you did it, you did it like a bull in a china shop and did not look after the reporting mechanisms.

Why did you close down those laboratories, which were so successful and which would have avoided the problem that occurred in Walkerton?

Hon Mr Harris: I'm surprised, being one, I think, who advocated we have a public inquiry, that you wish to be judge and jury all at once and

draw a conclusion. I think it's very foolish on your part to do so, but nonetheless you've done foolish things before and you'll do foolish things in the future. That's why we have Judge O'Connor

to take a look, obviously, at the actions of all governments and of individuals.

With regard to the tax cuts, I think the record clearly shows that the biggest tax cuts went to the lowest-income and poorest people here in the province of

Ontario, and that only because of those tax cuts did we have the resources to make up for the Liberal cuts in health care, to put the new funding into the Ministry of the Environment, to put the

new funding into education.

I know you oppose tax competitiveness; I know you opposed all of the tax cuts. I know Liberals don't like to see jobs and prosperity --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Thank you.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Throughout Ontario right now there's a rather serious

problem, and my riding of Kitchener Centre is one of those that is affected. It is impacted very greatly. In Waterloo region and in Guelph, there are currently 60,000 adults and children who don't

have physicians due to the shortage of doctors. Some 40,000 of those residents are in Waterloo region alone. I accept that there's a nationwide shortage of medical professionals, but cities in

Ontario are pulling out their cheque books to give signing bonuses to doctors because of the shortage. Minister, there's a problem.

While we have that problem, Waterloo region has at least 85 foreign-trained doctors and specialists who want to work but are prevented from practising in

Ontario because the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the self-regulating body for medical doctors in Ontario, claims that the doctors don't meet our standards. What are we doing to help the

situation?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The honourable member has an excellent point. This is the first time this question

period that there is something of value in terms of the political discourse of this province.

I can tell the honourable member that during the April throne speech this government committed to finding a whole series of solutions to address the doctor

shortage. Part of it has to be streamlining the process for accepting foreign-trained doctors. It is not only we who see the need for it to be done. The member for Beaches-East York has said on

occasion that it's unacceptable for the province to have qualified physicians driving taxicabs while families go without a family physician. I agree with the honourable member. Obviously there's a

valuable pool of talented and skilled professionals that can alleviate some of the physician shortages in our communities and provide the specialties necessary in our communities. I think we can

take less time to certify those individuals while still upholding the standards of medical care that we want to have in our --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Thank you.

Mr Wettlaufer: Minister, I know you see the problem, except that there are only 36 residency positions available for hundreds of

foreign-trained doctors languishing on the lengthy waiting list. This was even indicated by Frank Etherington of the Kitchener-Waterloo Record recently. Other provinces, as well as many states in

the United States, have taken the step forward and put in force less discriminatory standards for immigrant doctors. In my own riding this problem is acute. Our previous Minister of Health told us

that we would see speedy action on this subject, and I'm wondering when we're going to see it and what it's going to consist of.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Clement: The honourable member has obviously hit upon a popular vein, although our government is doing more about it than the rhetoric

on the other side, I can tell you that much.

In terms of the people's frustrations, we hear the people's frustrations. We are setting a target date to more than double the capacity for the assessment and

training programs. Of course we have to work with some of our independent partners, like the Council of Ontario Faculties of Medicine, the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the existing

international medical graduate program. I think you can rest assured that we'll soon be announcing an outline of this, of the government's not just rhetoric but action plan to streamline the

process. I encourage the honourable member, who asked the question in good faith, to stay tuned.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is to the Minister of Health and it concerns this truly tragic set of

circumstances that the frail elderly are facing in Ontario today. I have in my hand a report from the Champlain District Health Council, a health council serving Ottawa and the Ottawa Valley, a

report that was tabled earlier this week that makes plain that the challenges and pressures facing community care action centres in my part of eastern Ontario are real and serious and building. On

behalf of hundreds of frail elderly I represent in the largest county in Ontario, many of whose families are watching this exchange right now, these frail elderly want to know, what are you going

to do to address the kinds of pressures this Champlain health council has so clearly identified as out there requiring an immediate response?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I thank the honourable member for the question. Indeed we take this challenge very

seriously. That is why on all the fronts that affect, in terms of the delivery of health care, our frail and our elderly, this government has been there for those patients, for those citizens here

in Ontario. Funding for community health services has increased by 58%. Funding for home care has increased by 72%. I know that in the honourable member's catchment area, in Renfrew county the home

care has increased substantially over the last few years. That is a trend I'm sure will continue.

When it comes to the question of long-term care, I believe the Premier made the remark that we are the ones who increased the per diem rates, the payments per

resident. We were the first to do so after a freeze of many years. So we understand the problems and we think there happens --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Thank you.

Mr Conway: Listen, there is no question they have been increased somewhat, but as this just-released health council report indicates, the

single biggest issue facing people like the community care access centre in Renfrew county and elsewhere is that the downloading by your government of hundreds, if not thousands, of acute care

hospital patients into the community and home care sector has, more than anything else, driven up the need well beyond the resources you're providing. So I say to you, Minister, on behalf of scores

of seriously worried, frail elderly from Arnprior to Deux-Rivières and from Pembroke to Palmer Rapids, in a community where, as we speak, the CCAC is planning to cut over $2.5 million worth of

program spending -- 12% to 13% of their program budget for these frail elderly -- what are you going to do for these vulnerable and terrified frail elderly?

Hon Mr Clement: I believe that this Legislature, this government, need not answer to anyone in terms of the commitment we have made. This

government has supplied more per capita per senior than in any other province in this Dominion, some $128 per capita. I can tell you those are 100% provincial dollars. I know the honourable member

asked this question in good faith, but his colleagues, if they wish to be helpful in this area -- zero dollars from the federal government when it comes to long-term care, zero dollars from the

federal government when it comes to community care, zero dollars from the federal government when it comes to home care -- instead of sitting in your place and complaining, do something useful and

get your federal brethren to live up to the expectations of the people of Ontario.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: It's very unparliamentary to shout and so on. Actually, you've asked me to enforce the rules that do that, so I don't

think it will come as any surprise that I'm quite willing to do that.

The government's second question.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Hamilton East, again.

AIR QUALITY

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. We know that summer is approaching and we look

forward to warm and sunny days. Certainly that is obvious in this place today. Unfortunately, it's also a time when smog increases, which affects the health of many of my constituents in my riding

of Scarborough Centre. I wonder if you could tell us what initiatives you are taking to reduce smog and improve the quality of air, especially in the city of Toronto.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of the Environment): Yes, certainly smog is an issue of concern for all of us, and that's why the government

introduced the anti-smog action plan and is working in a very comprehensive manner with industry, environmental groups, health groups and other government groups, in order that we can take actions

to further reduce the amount of smog. I'm pleased to say that in recent years we have been able to reduce the level of smog below the 1990 levels.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): I'll not warn the member for St Catharines again.

Hon Mrs Witmer: When smog occurs early, as it has this year, it's important to remember that much of the smog is coming from the United

States.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: I'll not warn the Minister of Labour again.

Hon Mrs Witmer: In fact, Lois Corbett, the executive director of the Toronto Environmental Alliance, said that when smog arrives early it

means it is created in the United States. So, as I've said before, we're experiencing smog and much of it is coming from the US. However, having said that, we have undertaken the anti-smog action

plan. We have moved forward with the Drive Clean program, which I'm pleased to say is the most comprehensive program for vehicles anywhere in North America --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you very much.

Hon Mrs Witmer: -- and as a result, we've seen a decrease in car emissions.

The Acting Speaker: Supplementary?

Ms Mushinski: Thank you, Minister, for sharing those particular initiatives with us.

My constituents are particularly interested in knowing what the government specifically does when it issues a smog alert.

Hon Mrs Witmer: What happens, as a result of information that we receive from across the border and also from Environment Canada, is that we

issue a smog advisory. The smog advisory tells individuals that within 24 hours there is an 80% chance that there will be some very high smog conditions.

On June 12, for example, the ministry issued a smog advisory for the Windsor-Chatham area, Sarnia-Lambton, Elgin, London-Oxford and

Waterloo-Wellington-Dufferin. Also, there are smog watches issued over the next three days. This indicates that there's a 50% chance of high smog conditions. On June 12 this year, the ministry

issued a smog watch for most of southwestern Ontario and also a number of communities in the north.

This is available to people on our Web site, and we also issue a press release, and I notice now that many in the media -- it simply enables the public to take

the necessary actions in order to make sure that smog is not a --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you very much. The third party, third question.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Speaking of smog, we just got another smog alert

issued today, and there are 28 regions clear across the province on this list.

Last week your Minister of Energy told me in this House that you curtailed production at the coal-fired plants during smog alerts, but Ontario Power Generation

says that they increase dirty coal-fired power production on smog days. Yesterday, when I asked the confused minister who was right, he then said your smog action is to shift production to the

cleaner Nanticoke plant. The cleaner Nanticoke plant, Minister? Nanticoke, as a coal plant, is the biggest and dirtiest ship in the fleet.

Minister, I'm asking you as the Minister of the Environment, will you phone Ontario Power Generation today and direct them to cut back production on all of the

smog-causing coal plants during smog alerts so that people won't suffer so much?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I'd just like to share a little bit of information. I think it's important to mention to the member opposite that we have been

expanding the smog advisory in order to ensure that we can include more and more regions within the provision of timely information to the public when high smog conditions are expected. I think

that is important, because it then allows individuals to take the necessary precautions if there are health conditions. It also allows them to take actions which will reduce smog. For example, it

has been suggested that people not idle their cars, that they participate in teleconferencing, that they not use their barbecues, that they not use their lawnmowers and that they not use their

other equipment that would produce power.

Ms Churley: Minister, that wasn't the question. Let me put the question to you again. You said earlier to a question that this is a very

complex problem and it's going to take time to figure out different resolutions to this. I have a suggestion for you, something that you can do today that would make a difference to the thousands

of people who suffer from asthma, some of whom die on bad air days. I am making a concrete suggestion now. Would you answer the question? Would you phone Ontario Power Generation now and tell them,

in no uncertain terms, to cut the power production of smog-causing plants on bad air days? It's as simple as that. You can do it now and you can do it today.

Hon Mrs Witmer: In response to the question, in 2000 OPG did announce the very first policy to directly address the issue on days when there

is a smog advisory. OPG did commit to dispatch the Lennox generating station, which operates on natural gas or oil, ahead of the coal-fired Lakeview generating station.

Under your government, and perhaps you've forgotten this, electricity exports went as high as 11.2 kilowatts. That's 67% more than OPG has exported under our

watch.

Again, we have taken steps. We have announced caps on NO x emissions from electricity for the very first time. That's a step you could have taken and

you chose not to take.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I'm not warning the member for Toronto-Danforth again.

Hon Mrs Witmer: OPG's voluntary commitment will be to reduce to 18,000 tonnes in the year 2007. We've also taken another step that you did not

choose to take. We've planned reductions in the SO 2 cap to 157,500 tonnes initially, and --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

PARAMEDIC SERVICES

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Labour. I want to ask you about Bill 58 as it impacts paramedics and

essential services in this province. It's a bill that you brought into the House that claims to proclaim paramedics as an essential service in the province but does not give them the protection

that other groups who are regarded as essential services, such as firefighters and police officers, have in Ontario.

Minister, Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal Party very clearly believe that paramedics are essential to this province, as essential as police officers,

firefighters and hospital workers. We believe that they're necessary, that they're part of that health care system that we cannot do without in Ontario. They save lives.

This bill doesn't acknowledge that. It sort of gives them the right to strike, and it doesn't. It sort of gives them collective bargaining, and it doesn't. It

talks about replacing workers, as if you can replace an ambulance driver with a truck driver if some of them are out on strike.

Will you today acknowledge that they are as essential as firefighters and police officers and change your legislation to declare that, to make them truly

essential services and not second-class citizens, as you are treating them with this bill?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): If you were so clearly concerned with the fact that they were essential when you were in government,

why didn't you declare them essential services? It's kind of strange how you just forgot to do that when you were in government for five years.

There is a difference in the declaration of this bill; you're right. Police officers are a stand-alone unit. They negotiate collectively as police officers.

Firefighters negotiate collectively as firefighters. If you're a stand-alone unit as a paramedic, then you will in fact go directly to arbitration.

But there are a number of unions out there with paramedics in them that are blended. There are many outside workers who are blended with the paramedics. In

that scenario, like the city of Toronto, the city of Sudbury and places like that, what we have said is if you have a meaningful right to strike -- in essence, if there are thousands of outside

workers who can go out on strike while the paramedics go to work as an essential service -- then you don't need to go to arbitration. Whatever they collectively negotiate, if they go on strike,

those dollars are given to the paramedics at exactly the same rate that they've collectively negotiated.

Mr Agostino: This government has had six years to fix this problem. We believe that paramedics are an essential service in Ontario. They

protect Ontarians. They save lives. They often make a difference between someone getting to the hospital alive or dead. They are essential and should be treated as such.

The minister and the government can get around the changes that he just talked about. We can put legislation in place that would ensure paramedics are treated

on a footing with police officers, with nurses and with firefighters. This government likes to talk the talk about how important paramedics are, but it does not deliver essentially to ensure that

paramedics in Ontario are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. This is a second-class arbitration system that this government has put in place.

Again, Minister, will you withdraw this bill and bring in legislation that will treat paramedics on a footing with police officers and firefighters -- unless

you believe they're not essential to the health and well-being of Ontario? We do on this side of the House.

Hon Mr Stockwell: What we believe on this side of the House is that you shouldn't take away the collective bargaining process, and if you can

maintain the right to strike, that you should leave the right to strike in place.

Let me just say to the member for Hamilton East, this is exactly the way the city of Toronto has managed their ambulance paramedics for the last 30 years. They

reached an essential services agreement with the paramedics. The paramedics agreed to that. If there was a strike, the outside workers went on strike; the paramedics went to work; whatever they

collectively negotiated was given to the paramedics. That's the deal the paramedics made. They agreed to it, CUPE agreed to it, all the unions agreed to it. All we're saying in legislation is,

"Since you've been operating this way for 35 years, let's formalize it, declare them essential and ensure they never go out on strike." That's what the bill does. It's not too complicated, and I'm

not really surprised you don't understand it.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. As our economy continues to grow and the

demand for skilled workers also continues to grow with it, as you know, technology and globalization change the way we work. We will not only face a demand for more skilled workers but more highly

skilled workers as well. As you know, many newcomers to Ontario arrive here only to discover that their education and training do not meet our requirements. As a result, many end up making smaller

contributions to our economy than would otherwise be possible. It seems to me our government should be taking steps to assist foreign-trained individuals in evaluating their readiness to work in

Ontario before they arrive. Minister, what has the government done to make the transition to the Ontario labour market easier for foreign-trained professionals?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women's issues): We know in Ontario that more

than half of the immigrants to Canada choose Ontario as their home. We welcome them and want to make sure they can do the trades and jobs they've been trained for as fast as possible once they

arrive. To do that, it's extremely important that they get good information before they come. Therefore, we have at our immigration offices around the world various trades and requirements to

practise various trades and professions clearly written in all languages so that they will understand what the requirements are to begin with. This is something we've accomplished over the last

couple of years. We continue to work on it, and this is progress.

Qualified journeypersons from foreign countries can now write the certificate of qualification exam to get Ontario apprenticeship certification. ACAS is a

great success story. Working with all members of this House, we now can assess people to evaluate credentials from over 180 countries against Ontario standards.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I know how very skilled you are in negotiating and navigating this important achievement. On top of that, it's

infectious. The member from Scarborough Centre had a statement on this very subject today, and she has filed a resolution in support of foreign-trained professionals.

Helping skilled immigrants understand Ontario's requirements and providing the opportunity to prepare in advance is certainly common sense. But once we've

identified the gaps between Ontario's requirements and the qualifications of a particular individual, the next challenge is to bridge these gaps effectively and as soon as possible. Every

individual and foreign jurisdiction is different. Some newcomers may require significant training, while others may simply need to write a professional exam. What is the government doing to help

newcomers get the training and supports they need to make full use of their skills and be productive Ontario citizens?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: In the most recent budget we did commit some $12 million over three years to help foreign-trained individuals employ their

skills more quickly. This is on top of the $3.5 million announced in last year's budget to support bridging programs for foreign-trained nurses -- the program we announced not too long ago was the

CARE for nurses project at the Yee Hong seniors' centre -- and pharmacists. I should take this opportunity to thank the College of Pharmacists for working with us in this regard.

Our Job Connect program: $9.3 million to help newcomers prepare for the job market through training, information and employment preparation.

I'd like to thank my colleague for the compliment today, but I am not that skilled in getting people to do things for newcomers. My colleagues here in the

House have not helped me get the training agreement with the federal government, and I need their help. More newcomers could get trained if we would work with the federal government to get our

training agreement worked out in their favour.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If this minister had voted for my resolution, which would help these people

100% --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Order. I'll not warn the Minister of Universities again.

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

Mr Ruprecht: On a point of order, Speaker: I just wanted to repeat myself, that I've said that this minister --

The Acting Speaker: No. There's no point of order to repeat yourself.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. As a minister, you know that you and your government,

for months and years, refused to listen to our requests for protection for the Oak Ridges moraine and refused to implement the freeze that we asked for until the very last minute on the eve of the

Vaughan-King-Aurora by-election. You saw the light and, with unanimous consent, we had the freeze.

Now, Minister, the problem is that part of the legislation gives the power to cabinet, which you're part of, to exempt developers from the freeze by passing

behind-closed-doors regulations. Madam Minister --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): I'm not warning the Minister of Education again.

Mr Colle: -- can you inform this House and the thousands of concerned citizens across the moraine, from Caledon to Cobourg, how many of these

requests have come to the cabinet asking for exemptions from the freeze? How many?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of the Environment): I'm a little surprised at the member's question, because I know he voted in support of the

legislation, but let me tell you that the minister responsible for carriage of this issue is not here and I will certainly take your question under advisement.

Mr Colle: Madam Minister, so far the press is reporting that up to 50 requests have gone to cabinet. OK? What we're asking is if you, as

Minister of the Environment, will ensure that this freeze doesn't become a snow job; that in essence every exemption that comes before you and your cabinet will be made public and there will be no

exemptions given.

That's what we're asking for, Madam Minister: no exemptions given behind closed doors and that these exemptions be made public so there can be input from

conservation authorities and input from the citizens on each and every one of these exemption applications.

Will you ensure that, as Madam Minister of the Environment, these exemptions will not pro