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

May 2, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-May-02 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 2 May 2001 Mercredi 2 mai 2001

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DENNIS REDMAN

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

WATERFOWL HUNTING

ROAD SAFETY

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURTS

SOUTH ASIAN HERITAGE MONTH

SCHOOL CLOSURES

RAIL SERVICE

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PETROLEUM PRODUCTS

PRICE FREEZE ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LE GEL DU PRIX

DE CERTAINS PRODUITS PÉTROLIERS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC

AMENDMENT ACT

(OUTSIDE RIDERS), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(PASSAGERS À L'EXTÉRIEUR

D'UN VÉHICULE)

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ

ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

IRISH HERITAGE DAY ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LE JOUR DU

PATRIMOINE IRLANDAIS

TRUTH ABOUT IPPERWASH ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 CONCERNANT

LA VÉRITÉ SUR IPPERWASH

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

LIVING LEGACY

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

LIVING LEGACY

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

PAT CAREY

DEFERRED VOTES

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

ORAL QUESTIONS

SCHOOL EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

TUITION FEES

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

AIR QUALITY

CONESTOGO DAM

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

ROAD SAFETY

EDUCATION FUNDING

HIGHWAY ACCIDENT

IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE POLICY

LANDFILL

TAX REVENUES

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

HIGHWAY 407

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

CHILD CARE

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

KARLA HOMOLKA

VETERINARY SERVICES

MANDATORY INFLUENZA VACCINATION

GOVERNMENT CUTS

HORSE RIDING SAFETY

SOCIAL AUDIT

CHILD CARE

DIABETES TREATMENT

OPPOSITION DAY

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Wednesday 2 May 2001 Mercredi 2 mai 2001

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DENNIS REDMAN

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I rise in the House today to honour a true hero, Captain Dennis Redman of the St Thomas professional

firefighters, who died January 5 this year in the line of duty, battling an early-morning blaze that threatened the lives of senior citizens and residents with disabilities in a 102-unit apartment

complex.

As he did so often throughout his 20-year career with the St Thomas Fire Department, Captain Redman fought seemingly insurmountable odds. As blinding snow and

dense smoke filled the early morning air, he fought alongside his comrades to save the lives of sleeping residents, most unaware of the flames that consumed their home. It was a courageous battle

that saved all but two people, yet ultimately cost Captain Redman his life.

Captain Redman's heroism spread well beyond the confines of the city of St Thomas. Those who honoured this dedicated firefighter four days later travelled from

centres throughout Canada and the United States. Thousands lined city streets to parade to an overflowing arena for the funeral service.

Captain Redman was indeed a man of commitment and extraordinary courage who touched the lives of all who knew him and knew of him. But perhaps more poignantly,

as his daughter Nicole Marie said, "He was an ordinary man who did extraordinary things." We are all richer for having known him, and our thoughts and prayers go out to the Redman family, as our

thoughts and prayers today go out to the family of Captain Patrick Joseph Carey, who died in the line of duty.

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I stand today in the interest of all elected members of this Legislature and indeed all citizens of Ontario.

Specifically, the lack of decorum and respect in this Legislative Assembly exhibited recently causes me and my constituents of Durham great concern.

I need only point to three recent incidents to make my point: first, the accusation on April 30 against the honourable Premier by the member from

Timiskaming-Cochrane; second, the past statement made by the leader of the official opposition against the honourable Minister of Health, Tony Clement; finally, the actions of the member from Sault

Ste Marie in making political statements while in the chair as Deputy Speaker on December 19.

I wish to remind all members of the Legislative Assembly that these incidents -- the actions of the official opposition and third party -- violate, if not the

rule to the letter, then the principles laid out in

section IV, Order and Decorum and Conduct of Members, and

section VI, Rules of Debate, of the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly of

Ontario.

By the day, statements are becoming more and more coarse and more focused on personal attacks. This is not in the interests of serving the citizens of this

province. This is not in the interests of our integrity. In the interests of the greater good of the province, we ought to demonstrate the highest level of respect and civility to one another.

I believe that members of the official opposition and members of the third party ought to give careful consideration to the statement widely attributed to

Voltaire, but in fact written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall in 1906: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

WATERFOWL HUNTING

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): My statement today is to the Minister of Natural Resources. About a year ago, you started a process

to find an alternate location for the duck hunt at Presqu'ile park. I met Monday night with all of the residents of the area in municipal council, who made it very clear that they do not want duck

hunters in their backyards for four months a year, they do not want their property expropriated, and they do not want their safety put at risk.

Minister, you committed at the time of the initiation that if there could not be a willing host found to move it to, the hunt would remain at Presqu'ile park. I

call upon you to honour that commitment. This community does not want the hunt. Please, at this stage, without spending any more public money, end the entire process and leave it where it is. The

duck hunting situation was not broken; there was no need to fix it.

However, I am intrigued about the process. The evening of the presentation, we saw a 25-minute video. We saw maps produced. We have seen a team hold

consultations for a year. We have seen consultants brought in. Yet on the ODA front there is no one devoted to spending any time whatsoever to improve the rights and the lot of Ontarians with

disabilities. Surely the 1.5 million citizens in Ontario who have disabilities at least rank equally with ducks in Ontario. Let's take the resources that we have and focus them to help the citizens

rather than, as your Premier so often indicates, the special-interest groups.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise today to talk about an initiative I'm taking to increase road safety. This afternoon I will be

reintroducing my private member's bill entitled

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit persons from riding on the outside of a motor vehicle. Simply referred to as the "outside riders"

act, this bill, if passed, will help save lives by putting a ban on riding in the back of pickup trucks.

There are many occasions when riding in the back of a pickup truck is extremely dangerous. In July of last year, two young men from Northumberland were killed

when the pickup they were riding in slid off the road, ejecting them from the open box of the truck.

For those with job-related concerns, there are provisions contained in the bill that will allow individuals to travel outside the cab only under controlled

circumstances. These include agricultural, construction and municipal services.

I ask all members of this Legislature to support this bill. To show their support, the families of the two young men tragically killed last July have joined us

here today. Please join me in welcoming Laurie and Linda Mackey of Baltimore, and John and Judy Lawrence, and Jessica, of Cobourg.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURTS

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I want to use my time today to urge Attorney General David Young to establish a domestic

violence court in Thunder Bay, a court that would meet a pressing regional need.

Applause.

Mr Gravelle: Thank you. While it is encouraging that the government recognizes the need for this specialized family court service within the

province and has in fact already established them in 14 Ontario communities, it is frustrating that Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario have so far been left off the list of those communities.

This is particularly frustrating because such a specialized service is truly needed in our region.

Whatever the reasons for the delay, I would like to encourage Minister Young to work directly with the Thunder Bay and District Coordinating Committee Against

Domestic Violence, an umbrella group made up of 20 regional agencies that is extremely keen to begin the process of exploring models for a domestic violence court in our community. As the

coordinating committee pointed out in their letter last year to then-Attorney General Flaherty, Thunder Bay and district's unique geographical location, cultural issues and high incidence of

domestic violence more than warrant the establishment of such a court in Thunder Bay.

Minister, with the nearest such court presently located in North Bay, I trust I do not have to explain to you how truly inaccessible that is to my constituents

who want to access this specialized court service. I call on you to include Thunder Bay on your next list of communities to receive a domestic violence court. Please work with our coordinating

committee to remove any possible barriers that may be in place so we can ensure that victims of domestic violence in our community and district do not have to leave Thunder Bay to see real

justice.

SOUTH ASIAN HERITAGE MONTH

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I rise today to inform all members of the House that May is South Asian Heritage Month. The

month of May is significant because it was on May 5, 1838, that the first South Asian immigrants arrived in the Americas.

The first South Asians to set foot on Canadian soil were Sikh soldiers serving in the British Army. The Sikh lancers and infantry travelled by train from

Montreal to Vancouver on their way back to India, after taking

part in the Diamond Jubilee celebrations of Queen Victoria in 1897.

While most South Asians came to our country directly from Asia, many came to Canada from places such as Uganda, Kenya, Mauritius, Fiji, Trinidad and Tobago and

Guyana. Today over three million South Asians live in the Americas, and over half a million choose to live, work and raise their families right here in Ontario.

South Asians in Ontario today are proud Canadians. They work hard, create jobs, and respect the laws. They celebrate their culture and share it with their fellow

citizens. By becoming Canadians, South Asians have not lost their identity; they have only added to it.

Ontario's South Asian community provides a living social, political and economic link between our province and many countries around the world. So it is my

privilege to join with the Premier, Mike Harris, and all members of this House in declaring May South Asian Heritage Month to commemorate the heritage of the past, to mark the contributions of the

present and to help inspire the great promise of the future.

If I may, I have members of the South Asian community in the members' gallery, and I would like to recognize them: Mr Gary Singh, Mohinder Singh, Suresh Thakrar,

Jaspal Samra, Ronald Ramdial and Ram Jagessar, who's also president of the Indian Arrival and Heritage Month.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Last night, the Windsor-Essex Catholic District School Board was forced to vote to close seven more schools

in our Catholic system. They were doing that because of the government's funding formula. The parents at Sacred Heart, St Patrick, St Thomas, St Andrew, St Wilfrid, Desantis and St Clare, the

students there and the community know that these closures were the result of the government's failed funding formula in education.

There was a time in this province when there were growing communities where the province of Ontario would contribute additional capital monies for new schools in

order to preserve and protect and maintain our existing communities. But that all ended. That ended when this government decided it would only fund a certain number of square feet per pupil. What

we're left with is the very board where we just ended a five-week strike, which again was the fault of this government's funding formula, now closing seven schools.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): We fund space, not kids.

Mr Duncan: We fund space and not kids, as the member for Sudbury says, and that's just the wrong way to do it.

Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals have proposed a range of policies that will deal with the problems that we confront in our schools. Working families

will look to this leader, Dalton McGuinty, and his party to solve the problems started by the Harris government through its cuts to education and taking resources away from our kids.

RAIL SERVICE

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Yesterday, I had an opportunity to pose a question of the Premier in regard to the plight of the ONTC, and

specifically the ONR passenger rail service that covers services from Cochrane to Toronto. In that answer yesterday the Premier said that he was listening and intended to listen to the people of

the north as to what has to be done in order to save that particular service that is now in place in northern Ontario.

If that's the case, then he has to listen to what people like Roger Toal said, people like Donald Brisson said, people like the mayor of Hearst, Monsieur

Jean-Marie Blier, people like Ben Lefebvre from Iroquois Falls and many other people who were on the Survival Express two weeks ago, who said the first thing that the government has to do is to

have a financial commitment to the ONTC in making sure that ONTC stays as a corporation in northeastern Ontario that plays its role of economic development and providing basic infrastructure to

northeastern Ontario, that the Premier would listen to the issue of not selling off ONTel, because if you sell ONTel, there goes the money that is made from that corporation, a profitable

section

of ONTC that would then be lost, by way of cross-subsidization, to services like rail passenger service.

If the Premier is truly listening, he would look at trying to find solutions to strengthen the train. For example, change the

schedule -- the

schedule doesn't

work -- invest in the infrastructure and help make the ONR the type of service it should be: promoting economic development, tourism and passenger rail service in northeastern Ontario.

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): For the past six days, Canada had the honour of hosting His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales during a visit

to Canada. While here, Prince Charles honoured the town of Markham with the Prince of Wales Award for its efforts in fostering Markham's built heritage. The award honours a municipal government for

an exemplary commitment to the preservation of built heritage within its boundaries. Prince Charles, known for his interest in architecture, recognized Markham's superb efforts in maintaining its

heritage buildings.

Despite pressures of rapid growth and development, Markham has done an excellent job of protecting heritage buildings and districts, some dating back to the

early 1800s. The town of Markham, first established in 1793, consists of a number of historic settlements, including several in my community of Thornhill. Locations such as Colborne Street,

Heintzman House and Red Cottage are important historical sites that the town has preserved and promoted as part of its legacy. They help define the Thornhill and Markham community and serve as

important parts of the historic, enjoyable Thornhill Village Festival.

Markham has proven that development with preservation is not an oxymoron and that responsible growth for the future can occur with an eye to history and care for

historical sites. I would like to congratulate Mayor Don Cousens and the town of Markham on receiving this most prestigious award for a job well done.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the second report of the standing committee on government

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PETROLEUM PRODUCTS

PRICE FREEZE ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LE GEL DU PRIX

DE CERTAINS PRODUITS PÉTROLIERS

Mr Bartolucci moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 32,

An Act to provide for an interim freeze in the price of certain petroleum products / Projet de loi 32, Loi prévoyant le gel provisoire du prix

de certains produits pétroliers.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This statement will be short because this is the second time I introduced this bill; I introduced it approximately

a year ago.

The bill freezes the price of petroleum products at their price on February 14, 1999. The freeze applies from the day the bill comes into force and lasts for 90

days. If the Legislative Assembly is not sitting when the freeze ends, which is often the case, the minister may make an order extending the freeze for another 60 days.

The reality is that this will be the third time a bill like this was introduced. Premier Bill Davis introduced this in the late 1970s when, as Premier, he was

concerned about the people of Ontario. The people of Ontario are tired of being hosed at the pumps and they want this government, the Mike Harris government, to do something.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC

AMENDMENT ACT

(OUTSIDE RIDERS), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(PASSAGERS À L'EXTÉRIEUR

D'UN VÉHICULE)

Mr Galt moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 33,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit persons from riding on the outside of a motor vehicle / Projet de loi 33, Loi modifiant le Code de

la route pour interdire à des personnes de circuler à l'extérieur d'un véhicule automobile.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Galt: I'm introducing this bill to prevent the recurrence of tragic deaths like the ones that so regrettably took place in my riding last

July. However, it includes very specific exemptions for agricultural work and other legitimate occupations that require outside riders. I ask that all members support this bill.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ

ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

Mr Agostinto moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 34,

An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act to increase the penalties for contraventions of the Act and regulations / Projet de loi 34, Loi

modifiant la

Loi sur la santé et la sécurité au travail en vue d'augmenter les peines en cas d'infraction aux dispositions de la Loi et des règlements.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): If this bill is adopted, it would make this legislation among the toughest in North America when it comes

to fines and jail terms for contraventions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act in Ontario. It would increase the fines for individuals from $25,000 to $100,000 and the jail terms from one

year to two years. It would increase the fines for corporations from $500,000 to $1 million. It would also bring in a new provision that would allow for the jailing and fining of up to $100,000 of

officers and directors of corporations that are guilty of violating the Occupational Health and Safety Act in Ontario.

IRISH HERITAGE DAY ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LE JOUR DU

PATRIMOINE IRLANDAIS

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

Bill 35,

An Act proclaiming Irish Heritage Day / Projet de loi 35, Loi proclamant le Jour du patrimoine irlandais.

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

A short statement?

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): The bill recognizes the importance and outstanding contribution of the Irish community in its inclusive culture in

Ontario. Irish principles and values, such as a strong work ethic, devotion to family and service to community, are integral to the economic prosperity of Ontario, not just in the 21st century but

over time. If passed into law, the act will establish March 17, St Patrick's Day, as the day on which the historic legacy of Ontario's Irish community will be commemorated and officially celebrated

across the province. Irish heritage is an operative part of the cultural mosaic of Ontario, and indeed Canada. What better day than March 17 for all Ontarians to celebrate being Irish?

TRUTH ABOUT IPPERWASH ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 CONCERNANT

LA VÉRITÉ SUR IPPERWASH

Mr Phillips moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 36,

An Act to provide for a public inquiry to discover the truth about events at Ipperwash Provincial Park leading to the death of Dudley George / Projet

de loi 36, Loi prévoyant une enquête publique pour découvrir la vérité sur les événements qui se sont produits au parc provincial Ipperwash et qui ont conduit au

décès de Dudley George.

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

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

The member for a short statement?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): This bill requires the Premier to recommend to the Lieutenant Governor in Council that a commission

be appointed to inquire into and report on the death of Dudley George and to make recommendations directed to the avoidance of violence in similar circumstances. The commission is given powers

under the Public Inquires Act. Once the inquiry begins, the commission must make an interim report in six months and a final report in 12 months.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of the Environment): In February this year, when the Ministry of the Environment accepted the report from Val

Gibbons, entitled Managing the Environment: A Review of Best Practices, it signalled a fundamental shift in the way our province will go about protecting the environment. Our course of action has

never been clearer. We have a new mission to make the environment a broad responsibility across all ministries and beyond, to involve community groups, businesses, academics and the public, all

within a climate of continuous improvement.

This ambitious new course of action is a broad, integrated series of regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives from policy development right through to

enforcement. We have a new cabinet environment policy committee and a new associate deputy minister, the only such position in government charged with implementing our framework. In short, our

government will refocus the environment ministry to enable it to realize a bold, new 21st-century vision of environmental health and safety.

Also, in the coming year we will concentrate on policies and actions that protect and preserve the quality and safety of our most basic necessities: our air,

water and land. We will introduce amendments to strengthen and modernize Ontario's environmental protection laws.

We will build on the success to date of initiatives like Operation Clean Water. Our government will take decisive steps to protect the province's water supply,

including implementation of a comprehensive, multidisciplinary strategy to protect Ontario's groundwater. With local conservation authorities, municipalities and other partners, the government will

work to ensure the cleanest and safest drinking water. At the same time, we will continue to enforce Operation Clean Water with regular and frequent sampling, stringent treatment requirements, more

transparency and public access to information.

Furthermore, we must do more to protect the Great Lakes. Collectively, they are the greatest freshwater source on earth, and we have a responsibility for their

preservation. To respond to emergencies and monitor the quality of the Great Lakes, our government will acquire a new high-tech monitoring vessel.

Preserving and improving air quality is one of our most difficult challenges because of the diverse sources of air pollution and the broad range of effects it

has on our environment and our health. In many parts of the province, more than 50% of our air pollution comes across the border from the United States. But even as we try to encourage border

states to reduce their emissions, we are pursuing and must pursue better standards here at home.

Our government has already made great strides in addressing pollution from the electricity sector, including introducing stringent new emission caps on fossil

fuel plants. In the transportation sector, we have expanded our highly successful Drive Clean program as it enters its second phase.

To protect Ontario's air quality and meet the province's existing commitments to reduce emissions, the government will propose an Ontario air quality and

climate change strategy. The strategy will take aim at a wider range of air pollution sources. Ontario is determined to continue setting the pace as a North American leader in air quality.

Last year we introduced our first phase of mandatory monitoring and reporting of emissions of 28 substances from the electricity generators. Starting this

week, in order to further encourage emission reductions in Ontario, we are expanding this requirement to other large industries. In addition, the total list of pollutants with a reporting

requirement has increased to 358, including the full suite of greenhouse gases. This makes it one of the most comprehensive plans in the world.

Mandatory monitoring and reporting will help us set future caps on emissions, track progress in our fight against smog, acid rain and climate change, and

establish a foundation for future air quality protection measures. In response to the Managing the Environment report, the government will establish a comprehensive environmental monitoring and

reporting strategy.

Along with mandatory monitoring and reporting, we must have the capacity to conduct inspections. Our government will improve environmental protection by

enhancing the environmental SWAT team approach and related technological innovations to include inspections and enforcement activities, and the SWAT team will be permanent.

To help protect air quality and energy conservation in the future, we need to look more closely at the role of new technologies. We will propose that a

legislative committee investigate environmentally friendly, sustainable alternatives to our existing fuel sources and report back within 12 months. This committee would conduct an objective,

forward-thinking review of options to produce positive solutions, and in the near future we will be seeking out members who are eager to participate. The recommendations of the Managing the

Environment report that addressed knowledge management and emerging issues will help guide this research.

These initiatives, guided by a clear, long-term strategy for protection and sustainability, and supported by a wide range of stakeholders both within and

outside of government, give Ontario the best environmental strategy in the history of this province.

Building on the Managing the Environment report, we will stay true to the direction laid out in the throne speech and work to ensure that future generations

inherit a clean and healthy province. We invite all Ontario citizens, community representatives, experts and concerned citizens to contribute to the dialogue as our vision takes shape, and to work

with us in making this vision a reality.

Hon Brian Coburn (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): My colleague the Minister of the Environment has just reaffirmed this

government's commitment to protect our drinking water and our groundwater.

I have lived and worked all my life in rural Ontario, and I understand that the agri-food industry is a crucial component in the well-being of our rural

communities and, indeed, the entire province. It boosts our economy in excess of $25 billion each year. It supplies an abundance of safe, high-quality products, and the competitiveness of this

industry must continue to be a high priority.

The prosperity of the industry relies on the goodwill of all rural residents and the careful stewardship of our precious natural resources. This is not to say

that Ontario's farmers have been poor stewards of our resources; quite the contrary. Ontario's farmers are world leaders when it comes to environmental stewardship. They have voluntarily adopted

best-management practices and implemented environmental farm plans to minimize the effects of agriculture on our natural resources. But they know, as well as we do, that more needs to be done.

In the winter of 2000, a province-wide consultation showed that farmers, rural residents and municipalities all believe that to manage land-applied nutrients

consistently, roles and responsibilities must be clearly defined. To that end, the government will introduce a comprehensive nutrient management strategy that will provide Ontario's agricultural

industry with clear environmental protection guidelines. This will ensure that our agricultural sector has accurate information on which to base its management decisions. It will help grow our

businesses and our communities in a responsible manner. This will also ensure that Ontario's agricultural sector maintains its leadership role in environmental stewardship.

It is the next step on the path of continuous improvement. It is a path that is best travelled in partnership. Working with the ministries of the environment,

health, municipal affairs and housing, natural resources, all of our stakeholders, we will be able to make those tough decisions required to stay the course. I put the highest priority on

encouraging a strong, environmentally responsible agricultural sector, and I'm proud that with our partners we're taking another major step in that direction.

LIVING LEGACY

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I'm proud to be making a statement on what our government is doing to help ensure that

future generations inherit a clean and healthy province. As a government we are preserving Ontario's rugged beauty and protecting its rich natural resources.

This spring marks the second anniversary of Ontario's Living Legacy. It's a major milestone in natural heritage protection in the province. Living Legacy

initially was a land use strategy for an area covering about half of the province, but that has since been expanded to a province-wide program. It means, among other things, 378 new parks and

protected areas, totalling almost 6 million acres. It's the largest single expansion of parks anywhere. Ontario's Living Legacy includes nine signature sites, such as the Great Lakes Heritage

Coast, Kawartha Highlands and the Nipigon Basin, areas with exceptional natural heritage features that merit special protection and special promotion.

Last November, the Premier announced more than $100 million to make Living Legacy the most comprehensive natural heritage program in provincial history, with

funding going to species at risk, youth employment, acquisition of ecologically sensitive lands and more protection enhancement for fish and wildlife in their habitats.

On April 27 of this year, we moved to protect three more species at risk, bringing to 29 the number regulated under the Endangered Species Act. We've launched

six employment programs for Ontario's young people, creating more than 2,300 jobs to help deliver Ontario's Living Legacy. We recently announced the protection of 11 natural areas in southern

Ontario through the natural areas protection program, a key component of Living Legacy.

As we approach our peak camping, fishing and hunting seasons, it is worth noting that fish and wildlife are a very important part of Living Legacy. As Minister

of Natural Resources, I know how important these activities are, not only to our own residents but also to visitors to our province.

Ontario is blessed with a tremendous variety and abundance of fish and wildlife. Careful regulation ensures that hunting and fishing are carried out in a sound

and sustainable way. Hunters and anglers are actively involved in work to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat in partnership with my ministry. That's why the government will introduce a

Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act to recognize the important role hunting and fishing play in many Ontario communities.

Ontario's Living Legacy is also about long-term security for resource-based industries and fostering a business climate that attracts investment and encourages

growth. That is being achieved through the key component of Living Legacy, the Ontario Forest Accord. The accord is a precedent-setting approach by the government, the forest industry and the

environmental community to work together in establishing new protected areas while considering the needs of the forest industry for a sustainable wood supply. The Ontario Forest Accord advisory

board, with equal representation from the industry, the Partnership for Public Lands and the Ministry of Natural Resources, was set up to implement this accord. The board's recent interim report

highlighted agreement on a mechanism for sharing the forest resource into the future. The board expressed confidence that there will be room for growth in new parkland, room for growth in wood

supply for the industry and room for growth for jobs for Ontarians.

The resource stewardship agreements between the resourced-based tourism industry and the forest industry will also help the economy by providing greater

certainty about available land use. This in turn means more long-term investment.

Ontario's forest industry leads the world in sustainable forest management practices. On March 23 we began a bilateral negotiation process that is intended to

lead to formal recognition from the international Forest Stewardship Council that Ontario's forest management practices, regulations and other practices meet world environmental and social

standards. Ontario is positioned to be the largest jurisdiction in the world to receive this international green stamp of approval.

I think it's clear our province is committed to sound, sustainable management of our natural resources, and the world is taking note. The government's goal is

for Ontario to be recognized as a world leader in sustainable forest management and protection practices and a world leader in the protection of public lands, opening new markets for our forest

industry and protecting our natural environment for future generations.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): To describe what we heard as hollow platitudes would be to compliment it, because what we have heard are

several reannouncements by ministers without any kind of specific detail, minor movements in minor directions, and no overall commitment on the part of the government of Ontario to improve the

environment.

We have a new minister with high expectations, but what she must recognize is that there's virtually no support within that cabinet or that caucus for the kind

of aggressive environmental initiatives that are needed. All the jargon and puffery that we hear in the Legislature today cannot disguise the fact that the Harris government cut this ministry's

budget by 45%, almost one half, fired one third of the staff out the door, and took away the clout of this ministry.

If it is going to play a prominent role within this government, a paramount role in controlling pollution and in promoting the environment, then it must have

the necessary staff resources, funding and clout within government. I would suspect, looking at the colleagues the minister has and the fact that we have a Red Tape Commission with so much power,

that when push comes to shove, the environment will get pushed to the bottom of the pile.

When I talk about staffing, for instance, you would expect the ministry would be hiring people because of the embarrassment of Walkerton. We went through the

Job Mart and Topical newspapers, which talk about who the government is going to hire. Our hiring numbers since Walkerton do not indicate any government plans for what I would call a long-term

commitment to environmental protection. In the critical areas of enforcement and investigation and scientists, junior environment officers, senior environment officers and science and technical,

67% of the hires are temporary positions. I guess this is consistent with the Premier's comment, "I don't think it makes sense to staff up for that bulge on a permanent basis."

MOE has hired only eight permanent junior officers since June 2000, none since November 2000. Some 72% of the senior officers hired are temporary positions.

Much like the announcement of the pathetically understaffed SWAT team, these temporary positions simply put another piece in the Tory PR exercise which can be easily chopped when the spotlight is

off Walkerton and the environment. The real test will be whether the funding of this ministry is restored and whether we have permanent positions in this ministry.

I wish the minister well. I will support her in that endeavour. But what has been announced today is a clear indication that this government still does not see

the environment as a priority.

LIVING LEGACY

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): This is an initiative that's been hanging around this Legislature for over a year and a half, and

this statement today clearly shows that the Harris government is definitely not up to the job of dealing with agricultural operations in this province. Where is the definition of the strategy in

this?

Instead of going forward and looking ahead with a vision for agriculture in the 21st century, this government is going backwards. At least the former minister,

Mr Hardeman, had the guts and the courage to talk about legislation and regulation. This announcement today doesn't even equal the previous commitments this government made. You've abandoned this

industry. You've not provided any clarity to farmers, to municipalities, or more importantly, to the rural residents of this province.

The farmers in this province right now, because of the inaction of this government, are being dragged into court. Justice Kennedy has recently ruled in West

Perth that the province must take action. This statement today demonstrates that the province is not showing a commitment and is not taking action. It is also shown in Justice Kennedy's ruling that

municipalities cannot be randomly allowed to impose livestock cap sizes -- again no mention in this.

The minister talks a great deal about the number two industry in this province. Unfortunately this government is stifling and stalling investment in this

industry. You talk about, "We've got individuals who are prepared to invest and expand. We've got individuals who are prepared to do things," but they have no rules. You're implementing more red

tape. You talk about partnerships, but what we need is leadership and this government is not showing leadership in dealing with the agricultural community in this province.

It's just another doublespeak for downloading. You're going to download this to the municipal governments when it should be a provincial responsibility with

provincial enforcement and province-wide regulations.

As glaringly as agriculture was not mentioned in the throne speech, even more glaringly today there is no mention of capital support for improvements that are

going to have to be made as a result of new legislation.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): It's interesting to hear the Minister of Natural Resources talk about the fact that he believes

there's going to be an ever-increasing supply of wood in northern Ontario. The minister needs to get out of his office in Toronto, get into the boreal forest in northern Ontario and go and visit

the mills that are all now talking about the wood supply shortage, the wood supply gap that's going to happen. Anybody who has a wood supply map knows that within the next five years a number of

mills in northern Ontario are going to face a shortage of wood, and within the next 10 years it's going to hit virtually every mill and it's going to last for the next 25 years.

When I asked some of the minister's officials at public accounts what their strategy was to deal with this, they admitted they didn't have a strategy. In fact,

the only thing this government can point to is 10,000-hectare clear-cuts. That is the government strategy and they call it environmentally sustainable. People need to know what a 10,000-hectare

clear-cut means. It means no habitat for moose, no habitat for deer, no habitat for birds or bears or any of the other fur-bearing animals. It means destroying the natural habitat.

When I asked if this government was even consulting with First Nations, because the now available wood supply is all in First Nations territory, the response

was, "We're waiting for the First Nations to come to us."

There are over 60 mills and 30,000 jobs that now face, within the next five years, a wood supply shortage, and over the next 25 years will certainly face a

wood supply shortage. This government's answer? It's 10,000-hectare clear-cuts. That's their answer: cut everything in sight. Then they talk about environmental sustainability.

I want to refer to the Minister of Agriculture, because what we've seen from this government is three rounds of consultation now. A year and a half ago, in the

winter of 2000, they went out and consulted on the issue of nutrient management in the farm areas of Ontario. Then they brought back a report that they wouldn't show to anyone. Then the tragedy at

Walkerton happened. Seven people died and over 2,000 people became seriously ill. What was the government's response? They said they were going to go out and consult some more. Then they came back

and said, "We think this should be turned over to municipalities." Imagine: municipalities are going to do the enforcement. The next thing we'll hear is that municipalities are going to have to

enforce against the chemical companies and the pulp and paper companies and the mining companies -- no strategy whatsoever.

What do we hear now? Now they're going to go out and consult for the third time. There's no strategy here. This is just a strategy or a direction for delay

while the problem becomes more and more serious out there.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): The most telling words in the statement from the Minister of the Environment today are that they will

stay true to the direction laid out in the throne speech, because the throne speech was silent on the environment. In fact, a confidential Q&A guide to Tory members said, "Today's throne speech

didn't contain a single announcement about steps your government will take to protect the environment. Isn't this a terrible oversight?"

Minister, sadly, it wasn't a terrible oversight. You said yourself the other day that this was astounding, that for the first time, "The Premier and my cabinet

colleagues are committed to the environment." But your statement today proves you wrong.

It is well known by now that there are only two greens that Mike Harris understands: the green of the golf course and the green of the money he takes out of

the taxpayers' pockets and puts into the rich people's pockets. Those are the two greens he understands: the golf course and the money he takes out of taxpayers' money and puts into his buddies'

pockets.

Minister, let me tell you something: what we heard today was more of the same stuff over and over again. We were expecting an announcement that there would be

money put back in the ministry and the staff put back in.

You talk about the Gibbons report. It's nice that you finally discovered such a thing as a horizontal model. It's been around for over 30 years. In fact, it's

been discussed for over 30 years. The measures that our government took, like the green planning act and others, you've wiped out. So don't use that as an excuse not to put the resources back in

the environment. That's what we wanted to hear today.

PAT CAREY

Hon David Turnbull (Solicitor General): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise today to seek unanimous consent for a minute's silence to

honour the Toronto Fire Services captain, Pat Carey.

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

Hon Mr Turnbull: Captain Carey died while fighting an apartment fire this past Monday night.

The Speaker: Sorry to interrupt the minister. Did we want to do the moment's silence and then some speeches on it, or would you like to do it

first?

Hon Mr Turnbull: Why don't I do that?

The Speaker: OK.

Hon Mr Turnbull: Captain Carey died while fighting an apartment fire this past Monday night. Captain Carey was a 29-year veteran of the

Toronto Fire Services and, sadly, was due to retire in just a few months' time.

He leaves behind his wife and three children, and our thoughts and deepest sympathies are with them and all who knew Captain Carey.

We honour Captain Carey and all the brave firefighters in Ontario who on a daily basis risk their lives so that the rest of us are safe.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I'd like to echo those sentiments that were expressed by the minister. I would also like to add that firefighters on a

regular basis put their lives on the line. To know that doing your job means you may have to lose your life speaks to the professionalism and dedication to the job that's done by firefighters on a

regular basis.

We also have to acknowledge that their families know that when mom or dad goes to work, they might not come back. We must recognize that the families of our

firefighters go through the pain on a daily basis.

To the captain, to their families, to all firefighters, on behalf of Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal caucus, we offer our prayers and our hope that this never

happens again.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): There's always something incredibly shocking to us mere lay people when firefighters die in the course of

performing their duties. We are shocked and we're saddened and we're oftentimes overwhelmed, as we are in the instance of Captain Carey. But for firefighters, for those women and men who confront

the realities of those dangers on a daily basis, it's a moment of great sadness but it's hardly a moment of the same shock that we respond with, because these women and men surrender, park, their

personal safety as they respond to emergency calls that require fire suppression, as they respond to emergency calls in industrial areas and in industrial buildings and in high-rise apartment

buildings, where the complexities of firefighting have become all that much more intense, demanding and dangerous.

The New Democrats here certainly join with our colleagues in the other two parties in paying tribute to Captain Carey, and in doing that we pay tribute to

firefighters, women and men across this province -- big city, small town alike -- who have given their lives and who, as I say, set aside their personal safety on a daily basis as they act on

behalf of the welfare and safety of their communities. God bless them.

The Speaker: Would all the members and our friends in the gallery please rise for a moment of silence.

The House observed a moment's silence.

The Speaker: I thank all members. Will you please take your seats.

DEFERRED VOTES

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We have a deferred vote on Mr Hampton's amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the

throne.

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

The division bells rang from 1426 to 1431.

The Speaker: Would the members kindly take their seats, please.

Mr Hampton has moved an amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne. All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be

recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Smitherman, George

The Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the clerk

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael D.

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 35; the nays are 54.

The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

Mr Miller moved, seconded by Mr Arnott, that the humble address be presented to Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor as follows:

"To the Honourable Hilary M. Weston, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the

gracious speech Your Honour has addressed to us.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed will please 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 1435 to 1440.

The Speaker: Would the members kindly take their seats, please.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael D.

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Smitherman, George

Clerk of the House: The ayes are 54; the nays are 35.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SCHOOL EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. In the throne speech you promised Ontario's working families

that, "The government will act to ensure that all students in Ontario have the benefit of co-instructional activities."

That was received in many quarters by many families as good news. Many of our young people have been affected by the loss of their sports and clubs for up to

900 days. In fact, over 200,000 families have now been affected by the loss of extracurricular activities. Premier, on behalf of Ontario's working families, I want to know what specifically you are

planning to do and when specifically you are planning to do it.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'll refer this to the Minister of Education.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): The honourable member knows, because I certainly have stated my personal

belief and this government's belief, that extracurricular activities, co-instructional activities for students, are incredibly important. They open up opportunities for students. Teachers'

relationships with students can be improved because of extracurricular activities.

We took a number of steps last year to try to reach compromises that would have resolved the issue. They did not resolve the issue. In some communities the

labour disputes, when they were settled, resolved the issue, in other communities it did not. So we have the task force report. There are some excellent recommendations in that report. We are

studying that now to see how we can move forward with those recommendations, because students deserve extracurricular activities and we're prepared to take steps to make sure they have them.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, I don't want you to talk to me about communities resolving this issue. You have to take personal responsibility for

resolving this issue. I'm not sure you understand how serious this matter is. We're talking about over 500,000 children who have been deprived of their clubs and sports. We're talking about over

200,000 families. We're talking about some children who have been affected by this for over 900 days. It is your responsibility to fix this mess, which you have created.

I put forward a peace plan. We took a long time to develop that. We tried to compromise between your government and our teachers, and by so doing to put our

students first. You cast that aside and said you would have nothing to do with it. Your own task force came forward with some recommendations. You cast those aside and said you would have nothing

to do with them.

I ask you once again, Madam Minister -- this has gone on long enough -- what are you going to do on behalf of our students and our families to get back their

extracurricular activities?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I know the honourable member has his question written, and therefore he doesn't listen to the answer. No one has tossed aside

the task force report, and to continue to put that out is being mischievous, to be very charitable.

Second, let's also be very clear: your so-called solution, the solution you are putting forward, is to increase the student workload in order to decrease the

teacher workload. So students already have extra time in class, their school year has already been extended, they're doing extra work with the new curriculum, extra homework, standardized testing,

grade 10 literacy, and the honourable member says, "Let's solve the problem by making students work harder so teachers can work less hard." That is not a solution.

I'm very pleased to hear that the honourable member supports the task force recommendations. Perhaps he would also like to specifically support the two that

tell the union to stop penalizing members for doing extracurricular activities.

Mr McGuinty: In case you missed this, with respect to our peace plan that we put forward to you over four months ago, that is overwhelmingly

endorsed by Ontario's students -- just so you know. They want their school activities back. They want their sports back. They want their clubs back. We are moving very close to a point where

someone can go through an Ontario high school and never have participated in or seen a football game, never have participated in or seen a school play, never have participated in the work that goes

into preparing a year book. That is happening on the watch of the Mike Harris government.

You've had two options placed before you. You said one more time in the throne speech that you're going to fix this. I'm asking, on behalf of Ontario's 200,000

families who have been affected by this mess, when are you going to fix it?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Of course students want their extracurricular activities back, and I agree with the honourable member that when a student goes

to a teacher and asks that teacher to write a letter of reference for a scholarship and that particular teacher says, "No, it's an extracurricular activity, don't you know?" or when that student

goes to that teacher and says, "Help us with the Remembrance Day ceremony," and that teacher says, "No, because the union is preventing me from doing that" -- those are the stories that families

and students and teachers are telling this government. That's why we made compromises, that's why we invested more money, that's why we have a task force report that did an excellent job of

bringing forward recommendations.

We're doing the work on that and, I repeat, the students did not endorse your so-called solution. They did not agree that the solution to this was to let their

workload increase so that the teachers' workload would decrease. That is not the solution.

TUITION FEES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Working families want to know that any young person in Ontario

with good marks and hard work can become a doctor. We don't believe that how wealthy your family is should in any way dictate whether you get into medical school. Tuition fees for medical school in

Ontario under your government's watch have skyrocketed, with your approval, from $5,000 to $14,000 every year. Young people from working families have been hit especially hard by your tuition

hikes. The average yearly family income of Western's medical students has gone from $80,000 to $140,000 in just four years.

Behind me today, Premier, are a number of medical school students from medical schools across the province who are very concerned about this development on

your watch. My question to you is, why are you shutting young people from working families out of medical school?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I appreciate the question. I think it's important to put a few things in context in one of certainly the

lowest medical tuitions for quality schools in North America, which we have here in Ontario, including the University of Western Ontario.

The first thing is that when we significantly increased funding and opportunities and matching scholarships and bursaries and tuition increases, we insisted

that universities must apply a third of that to bursaries. That means that all medical students who need help paying for tuition and ancillary fees above $4,500 must get it from the universities.

Second, I can tell you that last year alone there were 572 medical students in Ontario, up from 532 in previous years. Applications are up this year: 3,854 students were competing for those 572

spaces. I might add as well that I am not aware of one student accepted for medical --

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

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you are changing the rules in the middle of the game. You are making it so that only young people from wealthy families

can go to medical school. We think that is wrong. We think you are depriving Ontario from choosing among the very best, right across the socio-economic spectrum. You're saying that the only young

people who can get into medical school, according to your rules, will have to come from wealthy families.

The average family income in Ontario, Premier, and you may have lost sight of this, is less than $60,000. The percentage of students who come from family

income of less than $60,000 has now been cut by more than one-half on your watch. It used to be that 36% of medical students came from struggling working families. Now it's only 15%. I ask you

again, Premier, why are you shutting young people from our struggling working families out of medical school?

Hon Mr Harris: Let me elaborate a little further. The government currently subsidizes, over and above tuition, $22,000 a year for the

universities to run our medical programs. In addition to that, should there be a student whose parents can contribute nothing and the student can contribute nothing and there's no time to work --

absolutely nothing -- we pay the $22,000 for that spot; in addition, $10,725 in OSAP loan assistance, of which only $7,000 would be repayable; in addition, one third of those tuition increases are

to be provided in bursaries. So it is possible that at the end of four years, a medical student will graduate owing $28,000. We think that's easily repayable, with a guaranteed OHIP billing number

in the province of Ontario, within the first few months of work.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, if you have a study that contradicts what I have been saying, then please table it here and now. The only reliable

information we have is the following: young people from working families have been especially hard hit by your policies. The average yearly family income for our medical students has gone from

$80,000 to $140,000. Those are the facts, Premier.

You may feel, given your view of the world, that this is somehow unimportant and not particularly relevant. Well, I can tell you that we on this side of the

House, who have the interest of working families in our hearts, think this is wrong. We think it's wrong for those families. We think it's wrong for our province. We think our province is entitled

to choose from among the very best, the very brightest, those who are working the hardest and those who are getting the best marks, not simply those who come from the richest families.

I'm asking you, Premier, what are you going to do now in the face of this information and this data? What are you going to do to ensure that young people from

our working families aren't shut out of medical schools?

Hon Mr Harris: Let me say a couple of things. Unlike the Liberals and the NDP, we've insisted that one third of any tuition increases be used

for bursaries in addition to the Ontario student loan program. I would say that there are, in fact, some who borrow and are responsible for up to $7,000 a year in student loans and now, after three

or four years, are graduating, for example, in early childhood education, with a potential of making $25,000 or $30,000 a year.

We do have a very real concern. But when you talk about students who are massively subsidized by the taxpayer in our medical schools, with a guaranteed income

upon graduation five, 10 or 15 times that of childcare workers or some other lower-income workers, then I question your priorities.

Finally, I issue this challenge: bring me one student accepted into a medical school here in Ontario who has refused to go with all of the assistance we've

provided. I would like to meet that person and talk with him.

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, we saw you deliver George Bush's energy strategy. You

admitted that you and the Liberal Prime Minister have both been working on the dirty deal to sell off our electricity system, and you both seem to think that building more nuclear plants in Ontario

is a good idea. Do you and the Prime Minister really believe that the people of Ontario want to see more nuclear plants in their back yards just to serve the American thirst for electricity?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): When you talk about the whole North American demand for growth and increased energy, you can't put your head

in the sand. You have to look at what are the options and the possibilities. Do you want 10 new coal plants in Michigan or Ohio blowing into Ontario, or would you like one or two nuclear plants,

the number one green energy alternative in the world today?

Mr Hampton: I think the strategy is becoming clear. While you're telling us how much you endorse Mr Bush's strategy, the Liberal Prime

Minister is ramming legislation through the House of Commons that will allow the burial of nuclear waste, even though environmentalists say that the system they've chosen is not safe.

Premier, I have to ask you this: will you tell the people where in Ontario the nuclear waste that will be generated by new nuclear stations will be buried?

Will you tell the people of Ontario that?

Hon Mr Harris: I haven't even said there would be new nuclear stations. But a bigger question is, where are we going to put the waste from the

existing nuclear stations that we have today? Clearly, we have an obligation, when we are obviously the leading country in the world in heavy water reactors, to deal with spent fuel. This is

something the federal government is charged with and is responsible for and it is something that we have been pressing them to make a decision on. It's not a matter of new nuclear reactors. It's a

matter of the existing nuclear reactors that we have to find long-term, safe, sustainable disposal for.

I think it's important when you consider that -- I know there are some environmentalists that are opposed to every form of energy, I suppose, including some

that would say a windmill heats up the air and that contributes to global warming. But I have to tell you that of all the practical, cost-effective solutions, nuclear energy is appearing more and

more to be the green energy of choice.

Mr Hampton: The problem I have with all of this is I don't remember you in the last election telling the people of Ontario that your plan was

to sell off our electricity system. I don't remember you telling the people of Ontario that your plan and Jean Chrétien's plan was to build more nuclear plants to feed electricity into the

United States. I don't remember you telling people in Ontario that you had a proposal to bury more nuclear waste in our province. Premier, tell us: where and when did you get the mandate to sell

off our electricity system, build more nuclear plants and bury more nuclear waste?

Hon Mr Harris: As I recall, it was in 1998 when we had an all-party committee. We travelled the province. We debated the Energy Competition

Act and it was passed in 1998, well before the 1999 election. It may have been brought up in the election. I don't recall you ever bringing it up, including in the debate we had. It may have been

brought up, and we would have pointed to the legislation that passed and the desire among the Ontario government to proceed away from this government monopoly that had been inefficient, that had

led to debt I think far in excess of where it should be in Ontario, and to move to competition and away from the monopoly. I think the voters of Ontario were well aware in 1999 of that legislation

and of the intention of the government.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question?

Mr Hampton: The Premier might want to remember that it was the nuclear plants built by a former Conservative government that saddled Ontario

with the debt, and your strategy is going to take us there again.

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I have a question to the Premier. Three months ago, we warned that this government had a plan to

privatize water. Now we find out that the Premier has admitted that much. Privatizing our water, selling it off to corporations, makes no more sense that selling off our electricity system,

especially when the people of Ontario say no, especially when the Walkerton inquiry hasn't even reported yet. Premier, will you show some respect for the Walkerton inquiry? Will you show some

respect for the people of Ontario and say to people very clearly that you don't intend to privatize our sewer and water systems?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think you're well aware that the private sector is involved in some areas of our sewer and water system

today, and was under your administration as well.

Certainly I respect the people of Walkerton, which was a fully public system, I might point out. We are awaiting the recommendations from Walkerton to look at

what we need to do in the future to ensure that public systems like Walkerton, or private systems that exist in the province today, that all systems, regardless of who owns or operates them --

municipalities or the province or OCWA or the private sector -- meet tough standards so that we can have security and guaranteed safe drinking water in Ontario. That's our commitment.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Final supplementary?

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Premier, I want to remind you of the information we have from what happened in Britain when they

privatized the system. It shouldn't even be on the table. Costs went up for poor people. Some poor people had their water turned off. More people got sick. There were droughts like they had never

seen before.

I want to say to you, Premier, that what you have done since you've come to government is taken away the measures the previous NDP government brought in to

deal with some historic problems in the system. We created the Ontario Clean Water Agency and put 1,000 workers there to run it. You fired 1,000 workers. You privatized all the water-testing labs.

You got rid of the programs to help farmers deal with agricultural runoff. I heard you say on the radio the other day that the private sector could do it better.

I am asking you again: will you tell us today that you will build up the Ministry of the Environment again, instead of tearing it down, so that the workers can

protect, through the public system, the drinking water of Ontarians?

Hon Mr Harris: Certainly we on this side of the House and the minister very much share the concern of ensuring that we never have another

Walkerton, regardless of who runs water in Ontario. We are following the inquiry and continue to express our sympathy to the families and the people of Walkerton. I appreciate the member's

selective memory on her government's record and I appreciate the advice.

AIR QUALITY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question to the Premier. The Ontario Medical Association indicated that 1,900 premature deaths a

year occur because of air quality problems in the province of Ontario and that it costs $1 billion in terms of lost time at work and the cost to the medical system. With a good deal of fanfare,

just as we had the fanfare today, your previous Minister of the Environment announced that the people of Ontario would be notified when the air quality index went over 50, in other words, when

there was poor air quality. Yesterday in Kitchener it was 51; in Niagara, 51; in North Bay, 54; in Parry Sound, 61; in York region, 55; and in Algonquin park it was 62 -- all poor air quality.

Can you explain to the people of Ontario why, after the announcement by your previous minister that they would be notified and provided with a smog alert, no

such smog alert was given in Ontario?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'm sure the minister can.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of the Environment): Unfortunately, despite the fact that discussions were held with Environment Canada and

with the meteorologist in the state of Michigan, all the indications were that air quality was to be generally in the moderate range. As a result, this was unexpected and no alert was issued.

However, I can tell you that our forecasting data have allowed the ministry to predict poor air quality for tomorrow and we will be issuing a smog alert for

tomorrow.

Mr Bradley: You see, Madam Minister, we get these announcements with a lot of fanfare about what you're going to do, and then, when it comes

to the action, when it comes to following through, we don't get the action.

In the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, there is an air quality report which has been sitting on the shelf somewhere and, to my knowledge, has not been released.

They refused to release it during the election campaign in Parry Sound-Muskoka. Your ministry kept it behind closed doors. We see that the air quality index in Parry Sound is 61, one of the highest

there is.

I ask the minister, in light of the problems experienced in Ontario, when are you going to require industries in this province -- industrial sources -- and

your coal-fired plants to take meaningful and aggressive action to ratchet down the amount of pollution going out in Ontario and adversely impacting children and seniors and others in this

province?

Hon Mrs Witmer: If you take a look at the announcement we've made today regarding mandatory monitoring, there are 358 that are going to be

monitored, that are going to be reported. I guess we are one of the first governments in the world to include an entire suite of greenhouse gases. I also remind the member opposite that in May 2000

our government actually enhanced the smog alert and air index quality program.

Again, I would remind you, based on the best advice we got in consultation with both Environment Canada and the state of Michigan -- I've indicated to you what

has happened, but I've also indicated what's going to happen tomorrow, so you're aware of the fact that there's going to be a smog alert.

CONESTOGO DAM

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. It concerns a very serious issue, a top priority

for my riding of Waterloo-Wellington, and that is the need to fix the Conestogo dam. The Conestogo dam controls water flow for the Conestogo and Grand Rivers, which affect the water supply of much

of Waterloo region and the city of Brantford. The gates on this dam are broken, and estimates place the repair costs at between $1.2 million and $1.5 million. If the gates aren't fixed, in a

worst-case scenario the dam could fail or collapse in the springtime, resulting in a catastrophic flash flood in which lives most likely would be lost. In the summertime, water levels could sink

below normally controlled levels, putting our drinking water downstream at risk.

I want to thank the minister for meeting with representatives of the Grand River Conservation Authority and with the president of the SuperBuild Corp, David

Lindsay. In these meetings, we were informed that currently there is no direct funding mechanism that would enable the province to be a major partner in repairing the dam, as should be the case. I

would like to ask the minister, what can he tell the House regarding the scope of this problem, as it may be experienced by conservation authorities across the province?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I want to thank the member for Waterloo-Wellington for the question today because I know

this is a concern for himself and for a good number of his constituents, and he has taken a very active role in making sure that I've been aware of this, my ministry has been aware of it and in

fact going to the meetings that he's just alluded to.

As always, and as noted in the question, safety has to be the first consideration in any of these capital projects, in any of these major dams across the

province. I'm pleased to note that in the Brantford Expositor in March of this year there was a story that read, "Contrary to some reports, a Grand River Conservation Authority spokesman insists

the aging Conestogo dam is not in immediate danger of collapse and the organization is gaining wide support in its bid to help pay for the upgrades."

I was relieved to hear from the story, from the conservation authority and from my ministry that there isn't a real urgent safety issue for the public in this

case.

Because safety is our first consideration, the Ministry of Natural Resources has begun developing and is well on the way to developing, in partnership with the

conservation authorities and others, dam safety guidelines for the first time in the province of Ontario which will allow us to make sure these structures are safe.

Mr Arnott: I'm afraid I didn't see the

article to which the minister referred, but I look forward to looking at it when I can.

I want to thank the minister for his answer and for his continuing interest in this issue. Clearly this issue should be no more complex than providing the

mechanism for conservation authorities to come forward and request support from the provincial government for infrastructure repair that is in the interests of protecting public safety, as the

minister indicated.

I will ask the minister, then, does he support my recommendation that conservation authorities be provided with this channel to obtain funding through a class

of applications that would be accepted from conservation authorities, and will he assist the Grand River Conservation Authority to fix the Conestogo dam?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm pleased to be able to report to the member that in February, in fact, there was a report that the Grand River

Conservation Authority has been very responsible in this matter. I must say, in the relationship with the municipalities that are served, and there are many of those, included in their

$17.3-million budget for this year was $600,000 for repairs on the dam this year and $600,000 for repairs next year, which in fact is what they estimate to be the cost of these repairs. I'd also

note that $1.5 million of the funding for the conservation authority comes from the province.

I'm also told and I'm pleased to tell the member today that the Grand River Conservation Authority funding application has been received by SuperBuild and will

be reviewed by them. I'm very pleased with the approach that the Grand River Conservation Authority and the member have taken to this critical problem.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier and it has to do with the shooting death at Ipperwash Provincial

Park. I want to follow up on an answer that you gave to us very recently here in the Legislature, where you revealed something that, in our opinion, was never known before publicly. You said that

on September 6, the day of the shooting, hours before the confrontation, you met with the OPP commissioner to discuss the situation in the park. That's what you said in the Legislature. That was a

new revelation to us.

The question for you, Premier, is, why did you wait five years to reveal the fact that you had this meeting? Why did you keep that fact away from the public

for so long?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think I may have indicated that we did meet with the OPP commissioner. I'm told we did not meet with the

OPP commissioner, and I did not.

Mr Phillips: So you're indicating you did not meet with the OPP commissioner the day of the shooting. I'm advised that your own lawyer in

recent court proceedings initially strongly denied to the court that you had held this meeting with the head of the OPP hours before the police moved to confront the First Nations. I'm informed

that later she was forced to tell the court that she had to change her story, and that in fact you had met with the OPP commissioner. Can you tell us which of these two versions of the truth is

reality?

Hon Mr Harris: I'd be pleased to check for you, but my recollection is I was not here the day of the actual shooting and any meeting -- I

certainly would not have met with the OPP commissioner, to the best of my knowledge, at that time. I'm happy to check that and give you the information.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Minister of Transportation. This afternoon I reintroduced my private member's

bill to ban riding in the back of pickup trucks. It's called the outside riders act. This act was previously introduced and died on the order paper.

As you know, riding in the back of a truck is extremely dangerous. If the driver of the vehicle is forced to make a sudden stop or accidentally drives off the

road, passengers situated in the back can easily be thrown from the vehicle, causing serious injuries and even death. Therefore, I want to ensure that my bill is passed so that the dangerous

activity of riding in the back of a truck is banned for good.

Many provinces have already taken this step, and recently the province of Alberta made riding in the back of pickup trucks illegal. I think it's time we did so

as well. It's way overdue.

Minister, I'm asking you today if you will indeed support this bill and assist me to ensure its passage.

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Transportation): The member raises a very serious issue, which was actually prompted by a tragic accident. My

predecessors in the Ministry of Transportation made road safety a priority for this government. We're very pleased that today our roads are fourth-safest in North America and second-safest in

Canada. But that doesn't go far enough.

Our government is striving to ensure that we head for the safest roads in Canada and in North America. I support the member's intention; I support the

principles of the bill. I'm looking forward to debating it through the standing committee and working with the member to improve the bill to ensure that we can actually help improve safety on our

roads.

Mr Galt: Thank you, Minister, for that support. I'm pleased to know that you're in favour of my private member's bill. As I mentioned earlier

today, this bill was prompted by the tragic deaths of two young men, Jason Lawrence and Bartley Mackey, who were from my riding. They were thrown out of the back of a pickup truck that accidentally

slid off the road. Both boys' parents and a sister are here in the gallery today and have requested that I reintroduce this bill to ban riding in the back of pickup trucks.

Following question period, they will be in room 154. Since both families have come a long way today, Minister, they want to explain to you what it's like to be

parents who have needlessly lost a son. They also want to explain to you how important this bill is to them, and particularly to their late sons. I ask if you would be willing to take some time

after question period to meet with them in my office to talk about this initiative.

Hon Mr Clark: I can't even begin to express how important this bill would be to these families. The realities and the tragedies that can occur

from youth riding in the back of pickup trucks --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Clark: The opposition may not agree with us, but the reality is that it's a very unsafe situation and we have to do something to

address it.

The member has brought in a private member's bill which, for me, really speaks loads to the essence of democracy in this House. I support the member's bringing

in the bill and will support working with him, and I will meet with the families after question period today.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): My question is to the Premier. I want to raise with you a question of accountability and mismanagement.

You probably know that you are two months late in announcing how much school boards will be getting this year. Colleges and universities don't know how much money they're getting.

I know that your business friends wouldn't put up with being kept in the dark for so long. When will you tell the students and parents of this province what to

expect in education funding?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'm sorry, the question was, "When will they know?" Soon.

Mr Marchese: Premier, my point was that you're two months late. Boards are waiting. You said you were going to behave like a business. Holding

boards of education and colleges and universities in the dark for two months is not behaving like a business. I think it's highly irresponsible. I believe your fiscal plan is in total disarray. I'm

telling you those boards, colleges and universities can't plan. They can't plan for how many teachers and professors they can hire. They can't plan with respect to textbooks and how many they can

buy. I have to tell you, Premier, accountability cannot be a one-way street.

I'm saying to you that boards, colleges and universities expect to be treated with respect. When will they know how much they're going to get in education

funding? When will they know?

Hon Mr Harris: Certainly I acknowledge we are later this year than we would like to be. Our partners on whom we rely to deliver these services

have had some preliminary information, certainly colleges and universities have, and I know school boards have received the overall direction. The individual details per board will be out very

soon, as will colleges and universities.

It has been a particularly challenging year. I think you are well aware this has been a challenging budget year. Even with our tax cuts generating record new

revenues for the province, health care continues to take an increasing proportion, 19% over the last two years. As you've heard, it's a very challenging budget year.

I appreciate that in opposition you have the luxury of not having to worry about these things. We on this side of the House do, and I assure you that both the

Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities and the minister responsible for school boards, elementary and secondary, are trying to achieve the maximum amount of dollars they possibly can to

continue the quality education --

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

HIGHWAY ACCIDENT

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Minister, on behalf of Dalton McGuinty and the

Ontario Liberals, we want to offer our sympathy to the families of those people who lost their lives in the fiery crash at Dryden this morning. Could you please stand in your place, provide details

to the House about that crash, and offer your assurances to the people east of Dryden that they have no reason to be concerned?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): That question falls under the responsibility of the Solicitor General.

Hon David Turnbull (Solicitor General): Tragically, there was a collision in the early hours of this morning between two tractor trailers on

Highway 17, east of Dryden. We know that there may have been hazardous materials involved. The area has in fact been boomed so that the water that was used to extinguish the fire wouldn't leak into

the creeks. Federal authorities are actively involved, as well as the OPP and Emergency Measures Ontario.

We have contacted the Canadian Nuclear Safety Council and Transport Canada, who are responsible for the transportation of hazardous materials. They will be on

the scene shortly. As facts become available, we will keep you updated.

Mr Bartolucci: Minister, as you know, the material that at least one of the trucks was carrying was iridium, which is a radioactive material.

Would you please inform the House as to whether or not Ministry of Transportation, Ministry of Natural Resources and Ministry of Northern Development and Mines staff were dispatched to the scene?

The accident happened at 1:30. It was still burning at 8 o'clock this morning. Could you please tell me whether those staff members arrived on the accident scene?

Hon Mr Turnbull: The latest information I have is that there was still smouldering and there was difficulty in getting some of the staff

directly to the scene because there were, tragically, deaths involved. As I've said, we will report when we have further information, but all authorities that are appropriate are involved in this,

including the Canadian Nuclear Safety Council, Transport Canada and all of our various provincial ministries, under the auspices of Emergency Measures Ontario.

IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE POLICY

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): My question is directed to the Attorney General and it concerns the issue of newcomers, immigrants and

refugees to this fine country, this province and the city of Toronto. My riding of Etobicoke North consists of nearly 80 different diverse communities. Up until recently, from 1996, our government

has financed legal aid to help those people establish themselves in this country.

They came here with very little in terms of wearing of clothes. They want to help their families and their children to get on with becoming responsible,

contributing citizens of this country.

The federal government is responsible for immigration in this country, and yet in the last couple of years, nearly more, we've had not one penny of money from

the federal government regarding access to legal aid for newcomers and refugees to this country.

What strategy have you been using to try to get the feds to start paying up and to turn around this deplorable state of affairs for our newcomers to this

country?

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I thank the honourable member for raising what is a vitally

important issue. Immigration is of great importance to this country and of great importance to this province. More than half of all new Canadians settle in Ontario.

But it is also very clear that immigration is a federal responsibility. It has been since this country was founded. The federal government controls how many

new Canadians enter this great nation. They control the process they follow, including the appeal process. All appearances by new Canadians are in front of federal panels, and appeals are to the

federal courts.

We, on behalf of immigrants and refugees, spoke up on behalf of new Canadians over the past two years. The Mike Harris government insisted that there be a

dependable, reliable, sustainable source of funding, and I'm pleased to say that at the 11th hour, the federal Minister of Justice did come and deal with this issue.

Mr Hastings: We seem to be making a little bit of progress in this uphill battle. It would be nice to have our provincial Grit friends join us

in seeing that Ontario gets its fair share on this issue.

How are you going to follow up on your strategy of getting the $20 million they owe us and end up with a permanent, multi-year funding arrangement so that our

newcomers, our refugees, our immigrants to this country and to this province can get themselves settled, get their families and children settled and not have to be worried about this? Across the

way, you don't hear a word of help from them.

Hon Mr Young: Let's be very clear: the province of Ontario has come forward and spoken out on behalf of immigrants and refugees. As a result

of that, 20 million more dollars are there and available for legal aid funding in this country. The only other province that came to bat in this very important and essential cause was the province

of British Columbia, which currently has an NDP government in place. I applaud our partners in British Columbia.

Let's be very clear: the $20 million is there. It is a pot of money, and over the next few weeks we intend to pressure the federal government to ensure that at

least half of those funds find their way to Ontario, because of course half of new Canadians settle in Ontario.

LANDFILL

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Health. About eight months ago, I raised concerns with this government

about health problems in a neighbourhood bounded by two old, abandoned dumps in the city of Hamilton, in my riding: the Rennie Street and Brampton Street sites. Your government has not acted in

these eight months on their concerns.

In the last couple of months, I took a survey of health issues in the neighbourhood around the dump sites, with some shocking results. Of 338 respondents, 74

people reported frequent headaches, 62 reported suffering respiratory problems, 41 experienced dizziness and nausea, and 15 were suffering from cancer.

This is a small neighbourhood in an old part of the city. These dumps were shut down in 1962. These people are suffering. They have legitimate, serious health

concerns that they are worried about. Will your government commit today to undertake a health study in the area affected by the abandoned landfill sites?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I thank the honourable member for the information and will take it under advisement.

I can say that some of these issues are shared, in terms of responsibility, with the public health officer in the jurisdiction. If they have any information we should be aware of or that other

ministries should be aware of, we certainly would take that under advisement. I can only say that generally at this time, and would be happy to work with the member on any information he has

available.

Mr Agostino: Minister, I appreciate that you are going to take it under advisement. Appreciate that I raised my concern eight months ago with

the Minister of the Environment, who didn't have the courtesy to respond for four months, and that I raised this in a letter in March to the new Minister of the Environment, who then passed it on

to you. So I'm shocked that you don't have any idea what the issue is.

These dump sites were shut down in 1962. Studies have shown there are no records of what was put in these landfill sites. Recent studies on the liquids coming

out of these sites show PCBs 30,000 times above the acceptable level and ammonia 20,000 times above the acceptable level. These are serious chemicals. They are connected to the health issues I

raised earlier.

Let me tell you about a double standard. When concerns were raised in Stoney Creek, Minister, your government did the right thing and had a health study as

part of the dump issue in Stoney Creek. Why is that not good enough for the people of Hamilton East if it's good enough for the people of Stoney Creek? Those health concerns are just as

serious.

Will you commit today to a health study for the people on the east side of Hamilton who are affected by these two old, abandoned dump sites?

Hon Mr Clement: The way the honourable member asked the question, he realizes this is a complex issue. There are issues of ownership, issues

of liability, issues of health -- which of course should be paramount -- issues of environmental concern, issues that are more local in nature and involve the medical officer of health in the

jurisdiction. By asking the question the way he did, he acknowledges implicitly that it's a complex issue. It deserves a considered and coherent answer. I'm not going to reply off the cuff. I'm

certainly willing to take it under advisement. If the honourable member has information he wishes to share with me, I'd certainly welcome that.

TAX REVENUES

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I have a question for the Premier. Many Ontarians are concerned about gas prices. The feds

collect a lot of taxes. Can you tell us how much the federal government spends on roads and highways with this money they collect?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Certainly rising gas prices, along with rising energy prices, are big concerns to Ontarians. Indeed, they're

big concerns to all Canadians. To reply specifically to the question, my understanding is that the amount of gas tax collected by Ottawa returned for transportation is around 5% across the country

and probably less in Ontario since their support for roads and transportation infrastructure in Ontario is minimal.

Mr Tascona: As you know, I was on the task force on gasoline prices. I and the member for Durham issued a report with respect to gasoline

prices, asking the federal government to deal with a number of our recommendations. I understand they haven't dealt with them.

I understand that in addition to the taxes the federal government collects, it also has an interest in Petro-Canada. My question for the Premier is, can you

tell us how well that investment is doing?

Hon Mr Harris: I appreciate the member's question and his concern about gas prices. Some have advocated a California type of electricity

freeze solution, and we saw the disaster that created in supply. Clearly it has to be a national solution; I think we all understand this.

Our difficulty with gas taxes is that I'm not persuaded that any level of tax increase is responsible for price increase, because there's not an active,

vibrant, competitive marketplace there; they're setting the price on supply and shortage of it. The problem then is, is there a government benefiting from a higher price? We know that the higher

the price is, the more GST the federal government gets, and we think that's wrong.

Worse than that, they are an 18% owner of Petro-Canada. The profits from Petro-Canada are up 383%. This is $893 million. The federal share of this more than

tripling of the profits is $160,000,740. So we can see the federal government seems to have a vested interest in higher gas prices, and we think that for a Liberal government that's wrong.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): My question is to the Premier. I, along with my leader, Howard Hampton, am calling on your help today to

assist us with the fairly serious problem we have in northeastern Ontario and northwestern Ontario. As you know, l'Hôpital Notre-Dame de Hearst, the Porcupine Health Unit, as well as the

district health council and my office have been working to try to establish dialysis services for the patients of Hearst. This spring we had five patients who needed to travel from Hearst to

Kapuskasing, more than 100 kilometres, in order to get life-saving dialysis treatments in the community of Kapuskasing. We've asked that in the interim, as we look to expand dialysis services into

Hearst, your ministry at the very least approve northern travel grants for those patients who have to travel from the community of Hearst to Kapuskasing. Unfortunately, your ministry is taking a

bureaucratic look and saying the communities, according to the atlas, are 97 kilometres apart, but in reality the patients are having to travel more than 100 kilometres.

Will you as a fellow northerner help us fix this problem and ensure that these patients are paid the travel grant they deserve in order to get what is

life-saving treatment?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Minister of Health can respond.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I thank the honourable member for the question. Indeed, I'm aware of the issue that

he has raised in this House. He has been corresponding with myself and my predecessor about this very question.

As the honourable member knows, the northern health travel grant is there to help defray transportation costs for those residents in northern Ontario who must

travel a long distance to see a medical specialist or to visit a designated health care facility. It's there for that purpose. It's a unique program. There's no program like it in southern Ontario.

It is specifically there for northern Ontario residents to help defray some of those costs.

One of the issues, of course, is where do you draw the line? One of the lines that was drawn was 100 kilometres. The honourable member has a case where there

is a discrepancy or a disagreement over whether the particular patient is 97 kilometres or over 100 kilometres. That is an issue that is obviously on the line and that we have to have continued

discussions about, and I'm willing to take the honourable member's advice on it.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary?

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Minister, I've sent you three letters from cancer patients who have to travel long distances in

northwestern Ontario to access cancer treatment. One, Mr Rudy from Red Lake, has to travel five and a half hours into Winnipeg to access cancer treatment. The second letter is from his doctor. The

other patient, from Dryden, has to travel four hours into Thunder Bay to access cancer treatment. The travel grant only gives them a small amount of their actual travel costs. We know that if they

lived in southern Ontario, their treatment costs to fly them to Thunder Bay, to Sudbury, to Cleveland, to Detroit, would be fully covered.

Minister, how do you justify fully covering the travel costs of some patients while these patients have to travel very long distances at very great expense to

access cancer treatment and you give them the most meagre of help? How do you justify that, and will you do something about it?

Hon Mr Clement: There are a couple of things embedded in that question. First of all, the travel grant is there, a unique program for northern

Ontario residents on issues relating to any health care concerns that qualify for the program.

Then you've got a travel grant program run by Cancer Care Ontario which is open to all residents of Ontario, including northern Ontario residents, if they have

to travel a certain distance. So it is open and accessible to every single resident in the province of Ontario.

If the honourable member then asks how I can justify the fact that persons in southern Ontario are being paid to go to Buffalo or paid to go to Detroit, the

answer is that I'm trying to fix that. That's the answer that relates to Sunnybrook, which the honourable member has opposed every step of the way. Rampant hypocrisy is not something that is

pretty, and that's why --

The Speaker: Order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: You have to withdraw that.

Hon Mr Clement: That's what I just did, but I would suggest to the honourable member that he be consistent when he criticizes the very thing

that is solving the problem of people going to Buffalo, people going to Cleveland, people going to Detroit for their cancer care. Do not hold that up as an example in the very next question about

how --

The Speaker: Order. The minister's time is up.

HIGHWAY 407

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): My question today is about Highway 407. Minister of Transportation, you have repeatedly refused to make

public any details of your sweetheart deal with Lavalin. Tolls have gone up as much as 57%. Licence renewals were denied to motorists for non-payment when in fact poor customer service and wrongful

billing were at fault. You made a deal that gave your rich pals carte blanche with no protection for working families -- at least none that we know of, because you refuse to make the contract

public.

I have here a bill for over $3,000 for sign damage sent to a motorist involved in an accident on the 407 during a blizzard. It was not the driver's fault. No

charges were laid. For all I know, maybe Lavalin didn't clear the roads. Here is another example of working families being gouged yet again.

Tell me, minister, are there are any protections at all for taxpayers and working families in that contract?

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Transportation): The 407 is undoubtedly one of the biggest successes the province of Ontario has ever seen. The

tolls on the 407 are the lowest in North America when it comes to that type of highway: 11 cents per kilometre for the 407; the San Joaquin in California is 14.2 cents per kilometre; Foothills in

California is 15 cents per kilometre; eastern California is 24 cents per kilometre. Quite clearly, our tolls are the lowest.

But I think the honourable member should listen to the Liberal Party on the other side. When they had their big Liberalfest, they had Donald Macdonald down,

who stated "Highway 407 in the greater Toronto area is an example of good public and private sector partnership" -- a former finance minister.

Mr Hoy: I assume that the minister will be revealing the contract shortly -- today, as a matter of fact.

I have the accident report and I have the bills. Once again, your corporate friends are making a presumption of guilt. Their information, once again, is wrong.

The accident occurred at Weston Road, yet the bill says "east of Highway 400." It says, "overhead sign damage," yet the motorist didn't hit an overhead sign. The icing on the cake is a $565

administration cost. Wow, for all the incorrect information, $565.

Is this what taxpayers and hard-working families have in store for them when you push ahead your privatization and your toll road agenda?

Hon Mr Clark: Accidents happen on highways and roadways and they're usually between insurance companies and the driver. Highway 407 is a

success. But what I find puzzling about the Liberal Party is Dalton McGuinty's response to Donald Macdonald's statement about the success of Highway 407. Dalton McGuinty said that while these types

of partnerships aren't new, the concept is new for his party. "There are a number of areas where the public-private sector should work together," and he cited hydro deregulation as an example.

I think the Liberal Party has to get their act together. Do they support public-private partnerships or not? Because they can't suck and blow.

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): My question is for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. I read in the paper this

morning that the federal government is today planning to announce funding for arts and culture, including funding for the CBC and the book publishing and sound recording industries. We know that

the arts are a major contributor to the economy and that they enrich our lives and our communities. I appreciate that the government has reinvested significantly in arts and culture in the

province, but one of the concerns I've heard from the arts and cultural organizations is that they need to be able to plan ahead. Can you tell me what the government is doing to support arts and

culture in Ontario and what your ministry is doing to ensure that arts and cultural organizations have stable funding, even in lean years?

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation): I thank the member from Scarborough Centre for her question. In fact, I

appreciate her ongoing interest in the arts and cultural community and I want to commend her for her work, as the minister for Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, when she brought in some major

new initiatives and outlined the vision the Mike Harris government upholds today.

As part of that vision, we've made investments into programs like the arts endowment fund, providing for long-term sustainability of the arts sector to

encourage private sector donations and individual donors. In addition, $30 million went to the Ontario Media Development Corp to initiate and plan for development of the cultural industries,

certainly world leaders in Ontario in many of these industries, and authors, musicians, visual artists and animation, and we're supporting that in the Mike Harris government; as well, $20 million

to the cultural attractions fund to help bring major events to Ontario to attract more tourists and support our cultural community, a strong, long-term commitment to sustainability in arts and

culture from the Mike Harris government.

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): There's still extraordinary frustration related to the northern health travel grant.

Petitions continue to come in. We will continue to fight the battle.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the northern health travel grant was introduced in 1987 in recognition of the fact that northern Ontario residents are often forced to receive

treatment outside their own communities because of the lack of available services; and

"Whereas the Ontario government acknowledged that the costs associated with that travel should not be fully borne by those residents, and therefore that

financial support should be provided by the Ontario government through the travel grant program; and

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

"Whereas the Ontario government has provided funds so that southern Ontario patients needing care at the Northwestern Ontario Cancer Centre have all their

expenses paid while receiving treatment in the north, which creates a double standard for health care delivery in the province; and

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

locations;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to acknowledge the unfairness and inadequacy of the northern health travel

grant program and commit to a review of the program with a goal of providing 100% funding of the travel costs for residents needing care outside their communities until such time as that care is

available in our communities."

I have hundreds of people who have signed these petitions and I'm pleased once again to add my name to the petition.

CHILD CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition that's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the Conservative government under Mike Harris has cut funding for regulated child care spaces in Ontario by 15% between 1995 and 1998;

"Whereas the Conservative government under Mike Harris has yet to implement the recommendations of its own commissioned Early Years report by Dr Fraser Mustard

to create a seamless, integrated early years education system;

"Whereas the Conservative government will receive $844 million over the next five years from the federal government for early years development projects;

"Whereas the Conservative government lags behind other provinces in announcing its plans for the $844 million in federal money for early years development;

and

"Whereas other provinces are implementing innovative, affordable and accessible child care programs, such as Quebec's $5-a-day child care program ... ;

"Whereas the need for affordable, accessible, regulated child care and family resources" centres "continues to grow in Ontario;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"We demand the Harris government immediately match and earmark a significant portion of the $844 million from the federal government for expanded regulated

child care spaces" and family resource programs."

This is signed by about 51 parents and staff from Centretown Parents co-op daycare in Ottawa. I agree with the petitioners and I affix my signature to it.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): " To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas on September 27, 1997, Cambridge was legally designated underserviced, having an insufficient number of family doctors for its citizens; and

"Whereas thousands of men, women and children in Cambridge are not cared for by their own family physician and this unfortunate situation exists in other

Ontario communities;

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

"That the Ontario government substantially increase the number of family doctors in Cambridge and other underserviced areas by:

"1. Permitting substantial numbers of qualified and highly competent foreign-trained family doctors the right to practise in Cambridge and other underserviced

areas in Ontario; and

"2. Substantially increase the number of available student spaces in Ontario medical schools and require new graduates to serve in Cambridge and other

underserviced areas in Ontario."

This petition is signed by over 300 good citizens of Cambridge and I affix my name thereto.

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it has been determined that recent funding allocations to the developmental services sector in the communities of Sarnia-Lambton, Chatham-Kent, and

Windsor-Essex have been determined to be grossly inadequate to meet critical and urgent needs;

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

"That the Ministry of Community and Social Services immediately review the funding allocations to the communities of Sarnia-Lambton, Chatham-Kent, and

Windsor-Essex, and provide funding in keeping with the requests made by families or their agents."

I affix my signature to this petition.

KARLA HOMOLKA

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads in part:

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

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

crimes; and

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

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

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

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

"That the government of Ontario will:

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature to this petition.

VETERINARY SERVICES

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the North Hastings community of Bancroft and the surrounding area is a predominantly rural geographic area that faces many of the same challenges that

northern communities contend with, whereby the role of livestock plays a significant

part in that economy; and

"Whereas the community is experiencing a crisis due to the fact that their veterinarian for large animals has indicated he can no longer provide services to

the Bancroft area, and there are no immediate alternatives for animal care within their geographic area; and

"Whereas the only known incentive program for veterinarians is funded through the Ministry of" Northern Development and Mines;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Ministry of" Northern Development and Mines "and the Ministry of Agriculture,

Food and Rural Affairs to work together to find a solution to this immediate crisis. We call on the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to introduce measures that would create incentives for

veterinarians to practise within the described northern and rural communities in order to abate this emergency situation and to prevent similar crises in the future."

I will affix my signature to this petition.

MANDATORY INFLUENZA VACCINATION

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I have a petition to the Legislature and it reads as follows:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the government proposes through legislation to enforce mandatory influenza vaccine and amantadine administration for health care workers;

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

"To terminate the proposal for legislation which would force health care workers to receive mandatory flu vaccines or amantadine administration. This proposal,

which does not allow individuals to refuse invasive and possibly dangerous medical procedures, categorically violates the basic freedoms and rights guaranteed by our Constitution. As members of a

free society, we should not be denied the right to protect our health. In addition, we should not be at risk of losing gainful employment if we choose not to comply. We want the right to choose

whether or not to be vaccinated."

It's signed by in excess of 736 signatures.

GOVERNMENT CUTS

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I have a petition here which is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and was given

to me by Janet Collins, one of our community activists.

It states as follows:

"A citizens' petition to Premier Michael Harris:

"Whereas the cuts imposed on Ontario by Mike Harris and his cabinet target the poorest members of our province and will cause enormous harm to both the working

poor and recipients of social assistance; and

"Whereas the cuts in areas of housing, social services like counselling, community centres and drop-ins, health care, education and municipal funding do not

save money in the long run and will lead to high social costs and waste of potential from citizens of Ontario; and

"Whereas abandoning the moral and social responsibility of government will serve to put enormous pressure on cash-strapped municipalities, increase local taxes

and will destroy the social fabric in Ontario,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to pressure the Premier and his cabinet to restore funding that has been cut to the citizens of Ontario

and protect the interests of all of its citizens, regardless of economic status."

I totally agree with this petition and I affix my signature to it as well.

HORSE RIDING SAFETY

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

"Whereas an increasing number of Ontarians are turning to horseback riding as a recreational activity; and

"Whereas many of these inexperienced riders are children; and

"Whereas currently there are no minimum safety standards regulating riding establishments; and

"Whereas coroners' inquests into horse riding fatalities from as long ago as 1977 have called for t