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

October 2, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Oct-02 (PDF)

L082 - Mon 2 Oct 2000 / Lun 2 oct 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION FUNDING

SMALL BUSINESS MONTH

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

ONTARIO AGRICULTURE WEEK

OLYMPIC ATHLETES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

COMMUNITY LIVING MONTH

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

NIAGARA GRAPE AND WINE FESTIVAL

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

PIERRE ELLIOTT TRUDEAU

ORAL QUESTIONS

AGRICORP

WASTE MANAGEMENT

WOMEN'S CENTRES

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

VISITORS

COMMUNITY SAFETY

CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

WATER EXTRACTION

ENERGY COMPETITION

SCHOOL EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

GASOLINE PRICES

ONTARIO YOUTH COUNCIL

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

ADULT ENTERTAINMENT

DIABETES TREATMENT

EDUCATION FUNDING

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

KARLA HOMOLKA

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

WASTE MANAGEMENT

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

LONG-TERM CARE

FARMFARE PROGRAM

HUNTING IN WILDERNESS PARKS

OPPOSITION DAY

WASTE MANAGEMENT

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION FUNDING

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): I attended two full days at school in my riding of Sarnia-Lambton, and what I found was overcrowded classrooms. The principals and teachers told me they had never seen such high numbers in the classroom.

My riding had no previous problems with extracurricular activities, but today, since Bill 74, we have had many extracurricular activities dropped at school in my riding. I found classes did not have enough textbooks. Science labs do not work, and there is no money to renovate and repair them. Students identified with learning disabilities have lost the resource teachers who could assist them.

Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal caucus know and understand that a well-educated society is our most valuable resource in order to compete in this post-industrial age.

United States legislators say they must create environments whereby educators are valued. The United States has increased investment in education and is working aggressively to recruit teachers by giving financial incentives to attract and retain teachers. The Harris government is doing exactly the opposite. It has a confrontational, arrogant approach that devalues and disrespects educators. It has no plans to address the problems, and I believe it is jeopardizing the future of this province.

SMALL BUSINESS MONTH

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): October is Small Business Month in Ontario. I am pleased to rise in the Legislature today to pay tribute to small businesses in Ontario. This month celebrates the enormous contribution that small businesses make to job creation. In Ontario, businesses with less than 50 employees created approximately 80% of the three quarters of a million net new jobs ever since our government took office.

Businesses are changing, and we need to create an environment to encourage even more job creation. In 20 years, the number of women owning businesses has doubled. More than 43% of new business starters are young people between the ages of 25 and 34. Our government has helped by cutting red tape and taxes for small businesses. We have a Web site full of useful information at www.Ontario-Canada.com/smallbusiness. Our government has worked hard to provide the right economic conditions for business investment and growth, but it is Ontario's entrepreneurs who have run with the new-found opportunities and succeeded tremendously.

I am proud to support the small businesses in my community and throughout Ontario for the wonderful work they are doing to keep Ontario strong.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): No one would ever believe that Mike Harris claims to represent a northern Ontario riding, not when the statements he made last week demonstrate such ignorance of the realities of northern Ontario residents.

The Premier suggested that health travel grants are discriminatory to southern Ontarians, who do not receive a grant when they have to travel to get health care-unless, of course, it is to get cancer care, when all their travel, accommodation and meal costs are covered. Northern Ontario residents who have to travel to get cancer care receive a maximum grant of $420. It's pretty clear where the discrimination lies.

Let's make another thing clear: only northern Ontario residents are expected to travel long distances on a regular basis to get health care. This is not a temporary situation for northerners, and it is not just about cancer care.

I have constituents who bring young children 1,600 kilometres to get treatment for leukemia, but I also have constituents who spend weeks in Toronto waiting for kidney or liver transplants. I have many constituents who have to travel to Toronto, Hamilton or London for cardiac surgery. I have single parents who don't know how they can afford to take a sick child to Winnipeg, which is 500 miles away, for the treatment of a neurological disorder. This woman has to make repeated trips, and she cannot go and come back in a single day. The maximum grant any one of these people receives is $420 for their trip, no matter what it costs them.

These people are spending tens of thousands of dollars to get medically necessary care. They are exhausting pension funds and mortgaging houses to get the health care that is supposed to be universally available at no cost. They are being treated unfairly and unequally, and the Premier should realize that.

ONTARIO AGRICULTURE WEEK

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I'm pleased to rise in the House today to proclaim that this is Ontario Agriculture Week 2000.

This morning I kicked off the third annual Ontario Agriculture Week, with help from my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, along with representatives from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, junior farmers and many other commodity organizations.

I also want to thank the members from all parties who joined us this morning for breakfast. Agriculture Week is an opportunity to recognize Ontario farmers and the importance of our agri-food industry.

I was born and raised on a farm. The hard work and dedication of my parents when raising our family was truly an example of what makes the farmers of Ontario great. The strength of our province depends upon farmers, and I'm proud to be the representative for some of Ontario's best. The people from places like Mitchell, Lucan, Listowel, Granton, Milverton, Ailsa Craig, Ilderton and St Marys all work to provide for others.

This week we give thanks to those who do not often receive the recognition they deserve. This year in particular it's important to provide recognition to those farmers who have had a difficult year due to inclement weather conditions and low commodity prices. I'd like to thank the farmers in my riding of Perth-Middlesex and the thousands of other farmers across the province for their contribution to the quality of life of our citizens.

This week, take a moment to salute our agricultural communities and farm families.

OLYMPIC ATHLETES

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I'm honoured to rise in the House today to pay tribute to a special group of talented and dedicated individuals, Ontario's Olympic athletes.

In particular, I would like to recognize the tremendous accomplishment of Sharon Donnelly of Kingston, who despite tremendous adversity and a near disastrous bicycle crash completed the race with dignity, showing tremendous courage and utmost determination.

Simon Whitfield's gold medal is truly legendary. His dash to the finish line had all of us shouting encouragement, leaping with joy and crying tears of happiness as he crossed. I personally know that his parents, Geoff and Linda Whitfield, have always provided him with positive support and encouragement. They instilled in him the love of all sports and encouraged him to pursue his dream of winning gold at the Olympics.

Little did we realize a dozen or so years ago, when our sons and daughters played together with Simon on a variety of sports teams, that the spirited prankster and agile soccer goalie would one day realize his dream of winning gold.

But what is equally important is the impressive manner in which he handled himself following his victory. His good humour and self-assurance, his tributes and concern for the other participants and his love and pride for Canada speak volumes of a young man of whom we can all be justly proud. He will truly serve as an outstanding role model for all our young people.

Congratulations, Simon. Your victory made all Canadians, especially all Kingstonians, extremely proud.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Over and over, we hear from Mike Harris and his ministers talk about the economic health of Ontario. But what about the health of Ontarians? What about the health of Ontario's environment? All the tax cuts and $200 cheques are of no help to the people of Ontario if they do not have safe water to drink and can't breathe the air because it is so polluted.

Take the Minister of the Environment's announcement of a SWAT team. What a cruel joke: 65 temporary staff, the majority taken from other positions within the ministry, to deal with a crisis this government has caused by its cuts and its firing of qualified staff.

Perhaps the minister would like to hire some of the SWAT extras from the movie production that is being filmed across the street. There are certainly more Chicago police extras hired for that movie than the minister's 65-member SWAT team. But that is not surprising. The Minister of the Environment is in charge of a bad, low-budget horror film-Dan's Environmental Horror Show-one that can't even hire enough people to protect Ontarians. So it tries to fool the public by having people play multiple roles: scientist in the morning, environmental officer in the afternoon and SWAT team member at night.

But unlike the B movies of Hollywood that bomb at the box office, the consequences of failure here are much more serious.

In the United States they are celebrating 25 years of having a safe drinking water act, and I can guarantee you we will in time have a safe drinking water act in Ontario.

COMMUNITY LIVING MONTH

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): October is Community Living Month. We all live, work and play in our communities. But if we cannot participate in the common daily activities of our community, we are unable to enjoy all the benefits that life can provide.

For the past 40 years, the Campbellford and District Association for Community Living has played an intrinsic role in the lives of many of my constituents. It's an important organization that has nurtured and supported developmentally disabled children and adults within Campbellford, Brighton, Warkworth and surrounding areas. The ultimate goal of the association is to develop a community that works to realize the dreams and aspirations of all.

Back in August, I visited the Association for Community Living and toured their resource centre with the Minister of Community and Social Services. We were truly amazed at the success of this organization. Success is what recently earned them the three-year Award of Accreditation, the highest level possible in the field. This was awarded by Accreditation Ontario following a quality review which recognized the excellent standard of service that the Association for Community Living provides for people with disabilities.

Everyone in our communities should have an equal opportunity. To kick-start Community Living Month, I know that you join with me in saluting the Campbellford and District Association for Community Living for their continuing effort in providing outstanding services and support to people with disabilities.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): My statement today is to the Premier. The citizens of Ontario listened last week with interest to your priority speech regarding your so-called promises kept and promises to be fulfilled.

Premier, we're not aware that you'd made a promise to waste thousands of taxpayers' dollars by giving the McMichael art collection back to the McMichaels, despite winning a Court of Appeal decision stating the opposite. Ontarians are shocked that this item has been your first priority.

We're only too aware, however, that you committed in writing in 1995 to bring in an effective and meaningful Ontarians with Disabilities Act. In 1998, this House approved 11 principles for this act to follow. In 1999, the House unanimously approved a resolution establishing a timeline for the act.

Today, still no act. Instead of helping the disabled, you've in fact made matters worse. You've cut funding to programs designed to assist the disabled. This is unacceptable.

Premier, a visually impaired person cannot to this day enter this Legislative Building and have access to an elevator with Braille buttons. There are 1.5 million citizens with disabilities in this province. If you don't care about the disabled, if you're not going to fulfill your promise to pass an Ontarians with Disabilities Act, be honest and say so.

NIAGARA GRAPE AND WINE FESTIVAL

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): As one of the proud members representing a riding in the Niagara region, it gives me great pleasure to speak of the Niagara Grape and Wine Festival that just wrapped up this past weekend.

The festival is 49 years old and has been recognized by Attractions Canada for the third year in a row as Ontario's top cultural event.

Just last week, Tim Hudak and I along with Minister Jackson awarded the festival $25,000 in funding from the Ontario Tourism Marketing Partnership Corp to assist in promotion and marketing.

On the weekend, I joined the member for St Catharines and the member for Welland-Thorold on the reviewing stand for the excellent parade that goes hand in hand with the grape and wine festival every year.

I would like to acknowledge this year's grape king, Matthew Speck, viticulturist and vice-president of Henry of Pelham Family Estate Winery. Mr Speck happens to be the festival's youngest ever grape king. Congratulations also to Jim Clark, vice-president and general manager of Colio Estate Winery. Colio was named winery of the year.

Over the past five years our government has worked with the grape and wine industry and will continue to do so to improve competitiveness both domestically and internationally.

Every year the grape and wine festival is held in recognition of the grape and wine industry's ongoing excellence in the production of quality wines. The grape and wine festival continues to be a great way to show off Ontario's wine and grape industry.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion regarding sitting on Monday, November 13.

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

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that when this House adjourns on Thursday, November 2, 2000, it stand adjourned until Tuesday, November 14, 2000.

The Speaker: 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.

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Tuesday, October 3, 2000, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker: 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.

PIERRE ELLIOTT TRUDEAU

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I seek unanimous consent that a statement be made by a representative of each party in honour of the memory of former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

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

We'll start with the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr McGuinty: Pierre Elliott Trudeau: what a man, what a leader and what a legacy. Quel homme, quel chef, et quel héritage qu'il nous a laissé.

When a man this great leaves us, many want to claim him as their own. I can tell you that we certainly feel that impulse. After all, we're Liberals and he was ours. Perhaps as politicians, all of us in this chamber feel he was one of us.

Some have said that Trudeau simply belongs to Canadians. I met one of those Canadians in my constituency office this past Friday. He was about 70 years of age and his accent was still thick, although he had came to Canada during the Trudeau years and made a home here for his young family. This man wept openly when he told me how much he loved Mr Trudeau. He didn't say he admired Mr Trudeau and he didn't say he respected Mr Trudeau; his feelings went beyond that. He said he loved him. For this man and for the millions of others who are proud Canadians first and everything else second, Mr Trudeau was theirs.

While many will claim him, the truth is that Pierre Elliott Trudeau was his own man. Always. If he belongs to anyone left on this earth, he belongs to those who loved him, not as a leader or as a legend but simply as a man. So let me start today by offering, on behalf of the Ontario Liberals, our sympathy to those closest to him, those who were at his bedside when he left us; his sons Justin and Sacha, and his former wife, Margaret.

A man this great inspires strong emotion from all who knew him, even those who merely watched him from afar. But a special kind of love and a very deep kind of grief is reserved for family. Our first thoughts and our prayers are reserved for them. Let us not trample on their place in his life in our rush to feel that he belonged to us.

Un homme de cette stature inspire de fortes émotions à tous ceux et celles qui l'ont connu, même ceux et celles qui l'ont regardé de loin. Mais l'amour spécial et le deuil profond sont réservés à la famille, et nos premières pensées et nos prières leur sont adressées. N'essayons pas d'usurper leur place dans sa vie dans notre hâte de l'accaparer.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau-now there was a man. His friends knew him as charming, witty and intellectual. His political opponents knew him as tough, relentless, even ruthless. He was often controversial, he was never ignored and he was always a good and loving father to his sons.

Trudeau the man may have been many things to many people but he was absolutely steadfast in being true to himself. All of us, and I mean all of us in politics in this country, are compared to him. Sixteen years after he left the Prime Minister's office, we are still compared to him.

Do any of us compare to that man? I think not. And there's no shame in this. There's only the one Pierre Trudeau and there will never be another.

It seems to me that if all of us in public life could together draw one lesson from Trudeau the man, it would be this: just as he was true to himself, so should we be true to ourselves. So should we be strengthened always by the courage of our convictions. What a man and what a leader.

His vision was crystal clear: a just society, our own Constitution, bilingualism and multiculturalism, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a strong central government, a strong and united Canada.

Sa vision était cristalline : une société juste, notre propre constitution, le bilinguisme, la Charte des droits, un gouvernement central fort, un Canada fort et toujours uni.

Today too often we confuse standing for something with standing behind ideology. Trudeau wouldn't suffer the restrictions of ideology. He was driven by ideas and inspired by ideals. He fought for those in a unique and powerful way. He actually fused passion and reason. If the sheer power of his passion didn't blast obstacles out of his path, then the precision of his argument would reduce them to rubble.

He didn't fret about headlines. He thought about history and our place in it. Who else could have stood up so boldly to those who sought to divide this country, those who came to the table armed with their phony arguments and those who came in the night, simply armed?

In the continuing struggle to keep this country whole, Canadians have never had a stronger champion. What a leader. What a legacy.

I suspect that Mr Trudeau, a writer and man of reason, would measure his own success in tangible ways: legislation passed, a Constitution patriated, the words in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, perhaps. But I propose that we measure Mr Trudeau's success in another way-in the lives of our children. For the job of a leader is not to resurrect the past or simply react to the present; the job of a leader is to shape the future. Our sons and daughters may not have met the exciting young politician that we met in 1968 or the accomplished Prime Minister that we bid farewell to in 1984, but they know his Canada.

They know a Canada where they can learn both official languages in their schools. They know a Canada where our definition of "special status" is being lucky enough to carry a Canadian passport. They know a Canada where multiculturalism is a fact. They know a Canada that is a symbol of tolerance and freedom to the entire world. They know a Canada that is strong and united and always worth fighting for. They know his Canada, Trudeau's Canada, because it's the Canada they are living in.

What a legacy. What a leader. And what a man was Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): It's with great honour that I rise on behalf of the NDP caucus to pay tribute to our most famous former Prime Minister.

During his time, as now, Canada was held out in the world as a place of great hope. Our focus and his focus on democracy, on fairness, on sharing, on compassion, on understanding that our obligations to each other go beyond our own provincial borders and our own national borders and indeed encompass the world: this happened at a time long before globalization was taking place. Still, countries around the world look to Canada because Canada is seen as a country with a lot of the inherent problems that many older nations have in terms of the stresses and pressures upon our nation, and yet a successful country as we're able to hold the country together, as we keep it bound together.

Mr Trudeau in many ways reflected that energy. I would say that only in Canada would a middle-aged man represent youth and vigour and vitality, but that's exactly what happened. Around the world, people took note, and like at home, not everyone agreed with the direction that Mr Trudeau took.

There are many of us who have secret confessions that have to be made about Mr Trudeau when it comes to politics. The federal election of October 30, 1972, happened to be three weeks after I became old enough to vote. Not being active politically other than hearing about John Diefenbaker and how wonderful he was because he was my grandmother's family lawyer back in Saskatchewan, there wasn't a lot of political exposure in my life at that time. I walked into that voting booth and I can remember thinking, "Well, he's prepared to trust me. I guess I'll trust him." I cast that vote.

It was very much for Trudeau, and it was very much for the fact that this was the individual that I thought at that time gave me the right to vote. That meant a lot to me. That unspoken and, to Mr Trudeau, completely unknown bond between the two of us was first broken by him in terms of wage and price controls, and later by me when I joined the New Democratic Party. Yet in no way do I feel that was an inappropriate vote at that time for where I was in life and for what was happening in this country.

Much of what Mr Trudeau brought to Canada has been the foundation of the expansion of Canada as a modern democracy, as a leading democracy. It has also been the foundation of some of our greatest turmoil, and continues to be. Yet can there be a Canadian ever who was not moved, was not touched in some way, by Trudeaumania? Even now, my daughter at eight years old is exposed to the reflective glory of Trudeaumania and is learning what was happening in the 1960s, 1970s and into the 1980s.

It's a tribute to Mr Trudeau that there is the outpouring of emotion that there is. It's not like us to do that; it's very un-Canadian. We think of that more in terms of our friends to the south. Yet when anyone has moved us as much as Mr Trudeau has, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect there would be the outpouring in the sense of an era having passed.

I say to members of this House and to all Canadians that the NDP caucus extends its very heartfelt condolences to his former wife and his two sons, as we did, oh, not so long ago when their youngest son died, and also to his daughter. We would only wish that when all of this grief leaves us as a nation, the family is able to find some personal peace, which I suspect they are having trouble finding at this moment.

Thank you all very much.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): I guess this privilege comes to me as the longest-serving member in our caucus and perhaps one of the few members of the government caucus who had the opportunity to meet Mr Trudeau on a number of occasions.

The first time I met Pierre Elliott Trudeau was during a law class at the University of Ottawa. Mr Trudeau at that point in time was our justice minister for Canada. Having graduated, as you know, Mr Speaker, from engineering and always appreciating a person who used logic and reason to get to a point of decision, I must say I was most impressed with Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his ability to reason, through logic to come to a reasonable, logical and sometimes brilliant conclusion.

I walked away from that day, I can remember, most impressed, not only impressed with Pierre Elliott Trudeau but impressed that our political system attracted people of the calibre that Pierre Elliott Trudeau was then and was, I think, during his period of time in politics.

I also had the opportunity to sit at the constitutional table with Mr Trudeau in the early 1980s, when I was responsible for aboriginal affairs for the William Davis government, and witness first-hand his ability to control, to share, and to be pragmatic in reaching and coming to conclusions and dealing with some very diverse and difficult interests.

I was amused when Mr Christopherson from the New Democratic Party admitted he had voted for Mr Trudeau in 1972. I think this is the first time that I could put Mr Christopherson and Ralph Klein into the same kind of room, because I understand that Mr Klein made the same mistake back at that time. I do admit that I, along with Mr Christopherson and Mr Klein, also made the same mistake, and I think that is really a testament to the brilliance of this man.

I, of course, like many other people, after that period of time worked very diligently on the other side of the ledger, but it was perhaps for me at that point in time a recognition of Mr Trudeau's ability to capture perhaps what the younger generation was seeking of Canada and was seeking of political leaders.

The Premier, who unfortunately is not able to be with us, wanted me to express his personal condolences, his grief to the Trudeau family, and particularly to his sons Justin and Sacha.

I would say to his family and to all the people who have been involved with Pierre Elliott Trudeau, we appreciated the time that they gave Pierre Trudeau to the rest of Canada. He did some great things for our country, and he will never be forgotten.

The Speaker: I thank all the members for their participation. We will ensure that copies of the Hansard go to the family members.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AGRICORP

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Our farmers have had a very bad summer. It's been too cold and too wet, and commodity prices have been too low. Farmers have an insurance program to help them out in times like these, and your job is to safeguard that insurance money. But it turns out that last fall, Agricorp, a body for which you are responsible, started day trading with farmers' insurance money and lost over $300,000.

Minister, can you tell us why, on your watch, you permitted people at Agricorp to play with farmers' insurance money and lose $300,000?

Hon Ernie Hardeman (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I thank the honourable member for the question. I want to assure honourable members and all those who are listening today that I share the concern that farmers' money needs to be protected. The farm insurance programs and all the safety net programs administered by Agricorp are what the farmers depend on, and they need to be assured that that money will be available to them when the need arises.

I can assure you that when it was found out that the situation at Agricorp was that some actions had been taken with money that shouldn't have been taken, we immediately asked the Provincial Auditor to look at the matter. He did, and made recommendations as to some things we should do to ensure this would not happen again. We have taken all those measures. But I want to assure the member opposite and all the farmers in Ontario that at no time was any money that was designated for the farm assistance program or the farm safety net program in danger or used for these purposes.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, you shut the barn door after the horses had escaped. Just as in the case of Walkerton where we had a government-run water inspection service which was turned over to the private sector, turned away from government, you took a program that had been run by the government, turned it elsewhere and didn't put in place proper rules to ensure that this kind of thing could never happen. You said that what happened there was not illegal. You said they didn't break any rules.

Why is it that your government didn't put in place rules at the outset that would absolutely safeguard this money for farmers, and what have you done today to ensure this can never happen again in the future?

Hon Mr Hardeman: Again, I want to point out that the losses at Agricorp are regrettable. I don't think anyone would wish that that should happen, particularly with money that was there to administer the program on behalf of the farmers, and in this case, the farmers were not given the opportunity to be part of the decision-making as to how that money should be used.

I want to assure you that all the money the member is referring to has been absorbed in the operation budget of Agricorp to make sure that none of this money will come out of the safety net and the insurance program for the farmers. We want to assure you also that with the assistance of the Provincial Auditor and all the other people involved at Agricorp, we have put in controls to make sure that something like this could never happen again.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Final supplementary?

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): The issue of trading practices at Agricorp could not have come at a worse time. Since your government has taken power, you've taken millions of dollars from provincial safety nets. Now we find that an additional $300,000 has been lost from the fund. The farmers in this province are losing faith in the very system that is supposed to be there to protect them from failed crops. Not since the year of no summer in 1992 have farmers faced such devastating weather, resulting in 100,000 acres left unseeded and drastically reduced yields.

By all accounts, we could easily see $140 million in crop insurance payouts. That is more than four times the amount that was paid out for last year's crop.

Minister, in your letter to me, which I received on September 13, you said that the $300,000 was absorbed from its start-up capital. That is unacceptable. A dollar lost is a dollar lost. What steps are you taking to recover the $300,000 that is missing?

Hon Mr Hardeman: Again, I want to say that the loss is inappropriate, and I don't think anyone could justify the action taken at Agricorp. I believe that's why, in conjunction with the Provincial Auditor, we took immediate action to put the systems in place so that this would not happen again.

But I want to refer to the honourable member's question as to the commitment of this government to the safety net program. I agree with him that we have had a tremendously difficult growing season for our farmers, because a lot of the crops have been lost through spring flooding, through inclement weather through the growing season, and in fact now we are all suffering through the lowest commodity prices that we've had in a great number of years.

I want to assure you that the crop insurance program, the market revenue program and indeed the whole safety net program is funded in order to make sure that we can make those required payments to our farmers. In fact, this year in our budget we have $120 million of safety net money, which is about a third or half more than we had in previous years-

The Speaker: The minister's time is up.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): I have a question today to the Minister of Natural Resources. As the Minister of Natural Resources, your sworn duty is to protect Ontario, to be the Ontario protector of our rivers and our lakes. In fact, your ministry's business plan states that the ministry acts as the custodian of our natural legacy and safeguards the public interest in Ontario's resources.

Minister, the proposal to ship millions of tonnes of Toronto's garbage to the Adams mine threatens the very future of our lakes and streams. It will contaminate billions of litres of water over its lifetime. But you have been silent. As the custodian of our natural resources, why this silence?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I'll refer this question to my colleague the Minister of the Environment.

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): In fact, there was the environmental assessment process that was undertaken with respect to the Adams mine project. There were the Environmental Assessment Board hearings that took place. There were judicial reviews of the process that took place with respect to that project. There was an appeal of that process as well. The experts reported back, and all environmental safeguards have indeed been protected.

Mr Ramsay: Minister, you continue your silence on this project. Maybe it's because of your involvement with Waste Management Inc. Shortly after joining the cabinet, you sold your 100% interest in Jarsno Equipment and Mid-Ontario Equipment to Waste Management Inc, which you know is a major partner in the Adams mine project. But your business dealings didn't stop with the selling of these companies to Waste Management, which, by the way, could earn hundreds of millions of dollars from the Adams proposal. It didn't end there.

According to this lease that we have here, over the last five years you have received $10,000 per month from Waste Management Inc for land that you still own in Mississauga. It also stipulates that Waste Management Inc pay all the taxes, assessments, fees and utilities. Minister, over the last five years, you have cleared $600,000 from the company that is at the centre of the Adams mine proposal. With this in mind, I ask you again, as the custodian of our natural resources, why have you been strangely silent on this proposal?

Hon Mr Newman: Speaker, I refer that question to the Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I thank the member opposite for asking the question. Yes, indeed, I did own a company engaged in the trucking industry in the province of Ontario for many years; that's been publicly disclosed. Yes, I sold it to one of the largest waste companies in the world on a cash-for-shares basis when I assumed this office; that's publicly disclosed. And yes, the conditions of that sale have been publicly disclosed. There is no issue with any of those.

To update the member opposite, although it's not necessary to, the rental of properties that he alludes to today was discontinued some two years ago.

Mr Ramsay: According to the lease here-and again, I agree these may be unimportant-the lease just expired last month.

Interjection.

Mr Ramsay: I have the lease right here and we can check it later if you'd like.

Last week I stated that the Adams mine EA was a fraud. I cited the Integrity Commissioner's investigation into the Premier's 10-year involvement with this project and I noted that your government hired the proponent's lawyer to rewrite the EA act to get this thing passed, which he did, representing Notre Development at the scoped hearing, which took only 15 days to get this largest landfill in North America passed.

Minister, your silence on this issue shows that you've not only failed in your duty as minister, but your involvement with Waste Management now tells us why. It appears that the fix was in from the very beginning, that this EA was a fraud.

Will you now stand up for our natural legacy and join me in calling for a full environment assessment hearing on the Adams mine proposal?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I take my job in this government very seriously. I take my role in this government very seriously. I take the role of the Ministry of Natural Resources very seriously. I can tell you that while there is a discussion going on now about the disposal of solid waste, I suspect it's a discussion that's been going on for some 50 years in this province, if not longer. I can tell you that I don't think the discussion is helped by insinuations as made by the member opposite today. I think they are unhelpful and in fact they are very, very inaccurate.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): To the Minister of the Environment: Minister, you killed one law, you rewrote another, you took campaign contributions from the American company that will run the site, you brought in the Adams mine lawyer to change the terms of the environmental assessment, and you put the water of thousands of Ontarians and Quebecers and the Timiskaming First Nation at risk. Why? To help the Premier's friend get rich? To get $74,000 in your campaign funds? This project is wrong and your so-called environmental assessment of the Adams lake is a fraud. It was rigged. Don't poison our water. Don't invite another Walkerton.

Minister, will you revoke the approval of the Adams mine scheme today?

Hon Mr Newman: This project has undergone extensive and thorough technical analysis to ensure that the environment was protected over the long term. I think that's important to know. As part of our commitment to protecting the environment, the Ministry of the Environment ensured that a full environmental assessment took place. The Minister of the Environment of the day requested that the Environmental Assessment Board review the hydraulic leachate collection and containment system with respect to the groundwater.

There was a certificate of approval issued after further technical analysis on the report, and that certificate carried with it 66 conditions. In fact, there were eight independent peer reviews that carefully analyzed the details of the plan and submitted their reviews to the Environmental Assessment Board.

Ms Churley: Well, this is cold comfort, coming from the government that gave us Walkerton. Minister, I ask you, is there anything you wouldn't do to push through the Adams mine deal? When Ontario law stopped the Premier's high school chum, Gordon McGuinty, from getting rich by shipping Toronto's garbage to Kirkland Lake, what did you do? You scrapped the law. When the plan was obviously so bad it couldn't pass an environmental assessment, you brought in Mr McGuinty's own lawyer, Robert Power, to rewrite the Environmental Assessment Act so that the deal would pass.

After rigging the EA, you let Mr Power tell the EA board how to approve the Adams mine under the very changes he promoted. He was so good at it that your Premier made him chair of the Trillium Foundation.

Minister, to push the Adams mine you rigged the law and ignored the most incredible conflict of interest at the EA hearing. When are you going to admit that something stinks here-

The Speaker: The member's time is up.

Hon Mr Newman: Let's do something different; let's talk about the facts. Let's look at Rail Cycle North's contributions to the NDP in 1999-Cameco, $7,500 donated to the NDP in Ontario. So it takes a lot of nerve to have the member opposite come here and lecture this government on protection of the environment after a full environmental assessment took place, after there were Environmental Assessment Board hearings, after the certificate of approval with 66 conditions applied to it and after the eight independent peer reviews that took place in that project. It takes a lot of nerve coming from that member and that party.

Ms Churley: Minister, the fact is the American company that's buying this landfill gave you a couple of thousand dollars every year until 1999, and then all of a sudden they gave you $75,000.

I ask you again, what is your price? How much does it take to get you to site a landfill in a beautiful lake, a landfill that should never be built? Is helping the Premier's high school friend Gordon McGuinty so important that you are-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member take her seat. Minister of Education, come to order, please. Sorry for the interruption.

Ms Churley: Minister, is helping the Premier's high school friend Gordon McGuinty so important that you are ready to poison groundwater and surface water in Ontario and Quebec for hundreds of years, or is it because the US waste company, Waste Management, gave your party $74,000 for its re-election campaign? I ask you again, is that the price? Is that what the people of Ontario have to do to get you to stop this crazy scheme, give you-

The Speaker: The member's time is up.

Hon Mr Newman: The only crazy thing there is the question. I want to tell you that waste management is a growing global problem and also a very emotional issue. We've seen that. I want to assure you, Mr Speaker, and the member opposite that this government takes very seriously its responsibility to preserve and protect the environment. The project has undergone extensive and thorough technical analysis to ensure that the environment is indeed protected over the long term. That's the role and responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment.

Again, there was a full environmental assessment; there were the Environmental Assessment Board hearings, which lasted six months, and the board actually attached 62 conditions to the plan; the certificate of approval was issued after further technical analysis-66 conditions; and as well, eight independent peer reviews on the project.

WOMEN'S CENTRES

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Deputy Premier-and it's to you, not to the minister responsible for women's issues. I want to know if you will immediately rescind the order of your women's issues minister to cut grants to at least four Ontario women's centres. She allowed funding cuts to women's centres and specifically to programs for survivors of domestic abuse in the very week your Premier claimed to make domestic violence a priority. Women's centres are the front-line community resource that are accessible and help women get the services they need to help themselves.

They put power in women's own hands to stop the violence and protect themselves from violence.

Just a week and a half ago, a coalition of over 95 women's groups who are demanding implementation of an emergency package to save women's lives called on your government to increase funding to women's centres by $2 million. Instead, the very next day you cut grants to at least four women's centres, threatening their very existence.

Deputy Premier, will you give truth and meaning to your Premier's own words? Will you order immediate restoration of the grants that have been cancelled to Ontario's women's centres?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I know that the minister of the women's directorate wants to answer this question; otherwise I would. I'll refer it.

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, minister responsible for seniors and women): Let me just, first off, say that I actually can't believe this question. Their research is incredible.

In 1999-2000, the money we put into women's centres in the province was $850,000. In 2000-01, that number climbed by $500,000 and we're now funding at $1.3 million. We're going to increase the number next year to $1.9 million.

This year 30 women's centres are receiving funding and that includes 18 new centres-18 new women's centres. We're doubling the amount of money people can receive, from $45,000 to $90,000, and we have more and more money being put into that area.

I don't know where the question's coming from but it just doesn't make sense.

Ms Lankin: Minister, cut the rhetoric and deal with the facts. The money that you put into the Ontario Women's Directorate, you put in to go to employment development programs, not women's centres. You're sending them to generic agencies, not women's centres. The grants that you have cut this year and last year and the year before are grants from core funding from existing women's centres that are out there on the front lines.

The program that you cut just last week in North York was a program that dealt with survivors of abuse. You said to them that because it wasn't focused on women leaving violent situations, you weren't going to fund them. So what do you want, those women to go back to the violent situations and then you'll give the centre the money? They were helping them take the next step forward in their lives, the next step to keep free from violence. And you cut that money.

Minister, six women died this summer; 44 women have died since May Iles. May Iles's jury recommended expansion of community supports. Your government has not done that. If you want a program to support employment development, go for it-I support you on that-but don't take money away from existing programs in women's centres to fund it.

I want to know if you will stand up for women, if you'll join with the Liberal critic and I and insist that your Premier meet with that coalition of women's organizations and respond to the package of emergency measures to be implemented this fall to save women's lives.

Hon Mrs Johns: There's no question that this government is committed to making sure that domestic violence is minimized. We will not tolerate domestic violence.

Let me say, in this particular example, that in one of the proposals that I received, and I'm not saying which women's shelter it was from, they asked for $300,000 to help 10 women in the province of Ontario. The 30 programs we decided on will help 500 women find new jobs, 123 women start new businesses, 102 women become better informed about career options, 160 women pursue further training to meet employment needs; 250 women will be able to leave abusive relationships through enhanced economic opportunities, 182 women will improve their personal safety and 60 women will receive assistance for children's custody.

This government's doing more for women than has been done in the past by either of these two and I can't believe they're asking this question.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Correctional Services. I understand he's making his way back as I speak.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just stop the clock for a quick moment. I understand he was supposed to be here. I see the chief government whip is out; he may be trying to track him down.

Hon Frank Klees (Minister without Portfolio): The minister has just arrived.

The Speaker: We'll start the clock again. The leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, I have a question about your dangerous plan to privatize jails in Ontario. When I travelled the province this summer, I had the opportunity to speak with many Ontarians on many topics. One of the recurring issues was your plan to privatize jails.

Police told me that they're against it. Communities which might serve as hosts for these private jails told me they were against it. People who work in our correctional services told me they were against this plan. Victims of violence told me they were against this plan.

They're all against it because it is clear from international experience that private jails are more dangerous than public jails. So can you tell me, Minister, why you are insisting on proceeding with a plan which experience has shown will be dangerous to the Ontario public?

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister of Correctional Services): We are making reforms in corrections because it's a business of this government that has not had the attention of previous governments. What has happened? A lack of focus on how to properly rehabilitate inmates; a lack of focus on whether we have the appropriate institutions in the appropriate parts of this province to house inmates and deal with the responsibilities of the criminal justice system as laid at our feet; a lack of focus on safety and security for those not only inside the institutions but outside the institutions.

These are problems with the publicly operated system in this province. So to stand in this House and say that the challenges of corrections across the globe should be laid solely at the feet of a private operator is inaccurate. It's inaccurate here in this province, it's inaccurate across the country and it's inaccurate in every jurisdiction in this country. When will you-

The Speaker: The minister's time is up. Supplementary?

Mr McGuinty: Minister, your first priority is to public safety. That's what it's all about. The international experience tells us that publicly owned and operated jails are considerably safer than privately run jails. That's the experience. The jury is in. We don't need to conduct a dangerous experiment here in Ontario.

Take a look at some of the facts. Assaults on correctional officers in private facilities in the States are 50% higher than in public jails. California has shown that prisoners are 37 times more likely to escape from private prisons than from government-run facilities.

Minister, you might want to consider the economic aspect of this. The US General Accounting Office reported in 1991 and 1996 that private jails did not save money. They are more dangerous, they don't save money, our police don't want them, our communities don't want them, our correctional services people don't want them, we don't want them. Who in Ontario wants them?

Hon Mr Sampson: What the people of Ontario want is a correctional system that will indeed have some impact on the lives of the individuals who go through that system.

The member wants to speak to the experience south of the border. What I think he's trying to say is that we intend to import the failed private experiment south of the border. We're not. I've said that many times. I agree with him; we don't want to do that here. What we want in Ontario is a correctional system that will deal with its job, which is to incarcerate and properly rehabilitate individuals.

The Leader of the Opposition believes that today's correctional system in this province is a model for the rest to follow. That model is allowing 80% of those who come in the front door to reoffend when they leave the correctional system. That's the measure of success by the Leader of the Opposition-

Interjections.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. We'll stop the clock for a moment. I hate to interrupt question period and the flow of questions, but we have an honoured guest who unfortunately does have to leave.

I am pleased to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have with us today in the Speaker's gallery the Honourable Stephen Kakfwi, Premier of the Northwest Territories, and assistant Linda Sorenson. Please join with me in welcoming the Premier of the Northwest Territories.

New Question.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): My question is for the Solicitor General. It has to do with something very important to the people of Ontario and Scarborough East, namely, public safety.

I know our government believes that one of the best ways to improve community safety is to invest money in front-line policing. I've done some research, and over the summer-

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Member, take your seat. Member for Windsor West, come to order, please. I can't hear the question.

Sorry, member for Scarborough East.

Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

During the summer, I know our government presented a cheque for $2.2 million to Chief Julian Fantino of the Toronto Police Service as part of our community policing partnership program. Through that partnership, I know the Toronto Police Service will get an additional 250 front-line officers. To date, 192 of those officers are actually on the street, and I know many of them are at 42 division serving my riding.

Last year we gave $106,000 to the Toronto Police Service for their Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere program, or RIDE. That means that since 1995 our government has given over a half-million dollars to their RIDE program.

Through our Partners in Community Safety program, Toronto has received over $11 million to support front-line officers.

Minister, all these investments have been made by our government to help keep the streets of Toronto safe. Could you please tell the House whether this is all our investment or whether we've made other investments to make sure Toronto and other-

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

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Solicitor General): I appreciate the question from the member for Scarborough East. It gives me an opportunity to talk about public safety.

The battle against crime takes place not only on the front lines, which is very important, but also through investments to the Centre of Forensic Sciences. I'm pleased to say that the Centre of Forensic Sciences for Ontario is recognized worldwide as one of the leaders in their field.

As a result of and as a follow-up to the Bernardo investigation, we had Mr Justice Archie Campbell provide a report. Through that report, certain recommendations were made in terms of public safety. That resulted in about $25 million being invested, but this is invested in certain areas such as the establishment of the serial and predator crime unit in 1997, which operates out of our police services division. Certainly the establishment of the provincial violent crime linkage analysis system, which is able to analyze a large number of criminal occurrences and provide an analysis to common suspects, and certainly DNA testing is the quickest in the entire-

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

Mr Gilchrist: I appreciate the fact that despite the opposition members' attempts to paint a doom-and-gloom picture, there are good-news stories out there. It's great to hear we are supporting a wide range of initiatives to fight crime, something the other parties disagree with and vote against every chance they get.

You mentioned that our investment in the Centre of Forensic Sciences has led to a reduction in DNA turnaround time. The connection of DNA evidence is obviously one of the most important crime-fighting tools to come along in many years.

Recently, the federal government introduced a national DNA data bank. I know our government supports the concept of a national DNA data bank, but we have some concerns about the effectiveness of the current system. I, like all Ontarians, was shocked to see on the front pages of our papers pictures of Karla Homolka enjoying birthday celebrations inside Club Fed, a federal Liberal prison.

Minister, could you tell my constituents of Scarborough East and the people of Ontario how our concerns over the current national DNA data bank are related to the Liberal policy of being soft on criminals?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Like the member for Scarborough East and most Ontarians, I was quite dismayed by what I saw in the newspapers the other day.

The DNA data bank is a very important first step we have in order to clamp down on crimes and help investigations. But we need more data, and the problem here is the retroactive collection of DNA. The federal government has decided to define very narrowly who we can get retroactive DNA from, which means you have to be either a serial murderer, a serial rapist or designated as a dangerous offender. That means you have to be a serial killer or a rapist to have your DNA taken retroactively. I believe that one homicide or one rape should be enough to qualify you to have your DNA taken. I don't believe this is rocket science.

We need to press the federal government. We need to make sure they have to take DNA samples from all criminals who are in our penitentiaries. I think it's an important step to ensure public safety in Ontario.

CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I have a question for the Minister of Education. I want to ask about the sham you make of helping special-needs students in this province, because all around this province are special-needs kids who are falling through the cracks that you have made in the school system. You and your government have reduced funds available to the boards over the last five years and left them to pick up the pieces. You make a show of putting a little money back this year.

Instead, what's happening is that boards are out of pocket and, to add insult to injury, you're making them do documentation, paperwork, taking on tests and so on. Parents in one board have spent $10,000 just on the medical letters. One board has spent $1 million worth of special education time just to qualify for your funding that then you won't provide.

Minister, will you admit here today that the $4 million missing from one board in Hamilton, for example, is your responsibility and that you will fund all of the special-needs cases that can be demonstrated on the part of school boards across the province? Will you put kids first someplace outside of your-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Minister of Education.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): Only a Liberal could turn a 12% increase in funding into a cut. We are spending $1.3 billion on special education in this province because it is a key priority. It is an important support for students out there with special needs. They deserve to have the opportunity to learn like every other student.

I should also remind the honourable member, since again his facts are in error, this is the third year in a row-the third year-that this funding for school boards has increased. Maybe the honourable member would simply like us to hand out cheques to school boards without any accountability, without ensuring that the money is going out for special needs and that those special-needs dollars are being used for those students in the appropriate way. That's not what the experts told us needed to be done. That's not what parents said. That's not what school boards said. They want a way to fund that is accountable to parents and those students-

The Speaker: The minister's time is up. Supplementary?

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): I'd like to make you aware of something that I'm really hoping you are unaware of. I'd like to make you aware of a detail that perhaps your bureaucrats haven't told you about, a crack that kids are falling through in Ontario.

In the past, kids in the borderline range of intelligence-in the olden days we used to call them the slow learners-were eligible to get educational assistance and extra resources. With the recent changes to special education funding, they are ineligible. When we did research on this seven years ago at McMaster and at the Hamilton Board of Education, we found that these kids actually went on to community colleges and technical schools with the appropriate support. This isn't going to happen if this criterion isn't reinstated.

I'll tell you about Justin at St Teresa of Avila School in the separate school board of Hamilton. He came home yesterday in tears, his mother said, and called himself dumb because he recognizes that he's not the same as his peers. If the education assistance is not reinstated, parents know they have a major crisis. He is eight years old, he's in grade 3, he's of average intelligence, but he's so severe that he can't even read yet and yet he can be successful with the proper resources. Minister, will you tell me here today that you will look into this crack and fix it?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, there have been no changes in criteria this year. Secondly, the reason school boards get special-needs funding that they can use flexibly-whether it's the Justins or whoever-is so that this money is not tied to an individual child. The school boards said to us, "We need special-needs money that is flexible so we can deal with the Justins and all of the others who have difficulties," so they don't have to be categorizing and labelling every single child in their school board. That's not appropriate. The funding that-

Interjection.

Hon Mrs Ecker: If the critic over there would be quiet and listen once, he might understand what is going on. School boards get resources for children with special needs in a general pot so they can use it flexibly. That money has increased for school boards. They also get additional monies for those who might well have higher needs. That amount has also increased. They have the flexibility-

The Speaker: The minister's time is up. New question.

ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. There are various municipalities, lenders and community environmental groups that are showing an interest in redeveloping contaminated properties-

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member for Parkdale-High Park, come to order. Take a seat. Member for Parkdale-High Park, please come to order. Member for Northumberland.

Mr Galt: My question is directed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, various municipalities, lenders, community environmental groups have been showing an interest in redeveloping contaminated properties that were previously owned by commercial and industrial companies. They've referred to these sites and facilities as "brownfields" and there's been a real success story with a brownfield in my riding.

In the downtown waterfront area of Cobourg, landowners, the public and the municipal government got together to clean up and redevelop land that had been contaminated with petroleum, hydrocarbons and heavy metals, which I understand are typical harbourfront contaminants from historical port, railway and oil storage operations. The proposed use of the new land will be mixed residential, commercial, open space, marina, campground, waterfront trail and sandy beaches-indeed, good news.

Minister, could you please tell me, is this good news spreading in Ontario? Is the brownfield redevelopment something that our government is examining as an option for other areas in the great province of Ontario.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Yes, Mr Speaker, the honourable member is quite correct. This is part of our strategy.

Two weeks ago, I, along with Minister Palladini and Minister Newman, announced the appointment of an advisory panel to provide expert advice on the environmental cleanup and the rejuvenation of old industrial and commercial sites, like brownfields. It's going to advise the government on policy improvements, to encourage and facilitate the voluntary cleanup of these sites. They will consider matters like clarifying liability, increasing financial incentives and streamlining the planning process. We'll be working together with other stakeholders to identify improvements to brownfield redevelopment through possible legislative changes. This will lead to action. This is a win-win proposition.

In the case of the member's riding in Northumberland, Ontarians are already reaping the benefits of brownfield redevelopment. It's good for the environment, good for human health. It's an alternative to urban sprawl, and we're proud to be part of that.

Mr Galt: Thank you very much for the excellent response and the fact that this good news is spreading throughout Ontario, because it certainly has been good news for the town of Cobourg. It is certainly a concern for all of us, because many of these sites have been contaminated in the past from their previous use.

Minister, what is the province going to do to ensure that the redevelopment of brownfields will indeed be safe?

Hon Mr Clement: That's exactly the point. The honourable member has hit the nail on the head. You have to clean up these sites and clean up the contamination before you can proceed with redevelopment.

We have a system of checks and balances in Ontario right now to ensure that people are protected. The Ministry of the Environment, if I may say so, encourages a proponent to follow the ministry's guidelines for use at contaminated sites in Ontario; it was released in 1996. But the whole idea of this is to encourage more cleanup, encourage more of these sites to be re-used, cleaned up and then redeveloped for residential, for new economy, for new industrial and commercial purposes. That's the whole idea behind this.

We're going to move from the right ideas to the right action so that we don't have to churn up that extra acre of farmland or that extra acre of woodland. That's a commitment of our government and I'm proud to be part of a government that has Mike Harris as a Premier, that has recognized this as important priority, more so than any other government, and we're going to follow through on it.

WATER EXTRACTION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Minister, let me paint a picture for you here: the Adams mine lake is so large you could drop SkyDome into it and still have room for another-

Interjection.

Ms Churley: It is a lake, I say to the Deputy Premier.

But you plan to deliberately contaminate that lake. Minister, this plan will contaminate drinking water in Ontario and Quebec for up to 1,000 years. They will continue-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Take a seat.

The member for Parkdale-High Park, I warn but once. The member for Parkdale-High Park.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you to the member for Willowdale. I'll handle it or he'll be named. I can't hear the question. You're talking across-you didn't even see me standing. This will be the last warning for the member for Parkdale-High Park.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The minister was clearly involved in this-

The Speaker: I say to the House leader-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Take a seat. It's not a point of order, and I will control the members in this House, I say to all members, one way or another, and it doesn't matter to me. If we sit here and don't have question period, the members can explain to the leaders why we're not going to have question period. If need be, I'll stand here for the entire hour and the clock will click down. The pages and I are in good enough shape for an hour and you can explain to the leadership why there are no questions. It doesn't matter to me.

The member for Toronto-Danforth.

Ms Churley: The plan will deliberately contaminate, on a daily basis, millions of litres of pristine groundwater by washing Toronto's garbage. Isn't that ridiculous? The one small mercy, Minister, is that you still have a chance to redeem yourself here, because they can't drain that pit every day unless you give them a special permit to take water. Minister, do you intend to enforce the law and make the proponent apply for a permit to take water before they can build and operate such a system?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): I want to say to the member opposite that there are two approvals required from this ministry before the proponent can begin de-watering operations at the site. De-watering is necessary to expose the south pit and begin construction of a leachate collection system. These two approvals are a permit to remove water from the pit and a

section 53 sewage works approval under the Ontario Water Resources Act for discharge of water into the natural environment.

While a permit to take water is to allow for de-watering of the south pit, no water may be taken under the permit until the proponent obtains the Ontario Water Resources Act approval. This application is currently being reviewed by the ministry. I want to indicate that the water from the pit meets provincial water quality objectives and is intended to be discharged through old mine tailings and pond settlings and then into the Misema River.

Ms Churley: Minister, I'm not sure if you said you're actually going to give that permit or not, but I want an assurance from you today that when whoever of those proponents who wants to run that landfill applies for a permit to take water, you will require that application to be posted on the registry for extensive public review and comments-or will you try and use loopholes once again to keep this from public view?

Minister, I'm asking you to do the right thing today. Will you make that commitment, or will you tell the thousands of people in Quebec and Ontario that you are so ashamed of this plan that you are going to continue to try to hide it from public view? My heavens, after what happened in Walkerton-this is an experimental system. The most comprehensive hearings are needed and the public need to be involved. Will you give that assurance today?

Hon Mr Newman: The permit was released in a draft form to the company on August 10 of this year, and to the members of the public liaison committee stakeholders on August 15 of this year. Comments were accepted until October 31, 2000. Some 99 comments were received and were reviewed by the director. Obviously, he's reviewing those comments.

The member opposite raises the item with respect to Quebec. I know the environment ministry in the province of Quebec has indicated today through a press release that, "It appears from this analysis that the project will have no significant environmental impact on Lake Timiskaming, as long as the proponent abides by the conditions set out in the certificate of authorization by the Ministry of Environment." This is the Quebec government speaking today on the Adams mine.

ENERGY COMPETITION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is to the Minister of Energy and it concerns electricity policy. Minister, you continually say that the Harris government is interested in and supportive of competition in its electricity policy, yet in terms of the retailing of electricity we are seeing across the province the re-monopolization of Ontario Hydro.

Thanks to the unfair advantages that your government has given to your company, Ontario Hydro, now called Hydro One, Hydro One is going around the province of Ontario, in small and large centres, buying up local utilities, and we're told by outside experts that in many cases they are paying premium prices for these purchases.

My question to you today, on behalf of the electricity consumers, is, why are we seeing the re-monopolization of Ontario Hydro Retail, and how is it possible that this re-monopolization is occurring under your noses, which tell us we're about to get competition?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): The honourable member has a couple of concepts mixed up. The retailing of electricity has nothing to do with the monopoly wires businesses that Hydro One is going around and buying up. Under law, those have to be two separate entities, and no cross-subsidization is allowed between retailing-by the way, there's lots of competition emerging in retailing of electricity.

We have over 40 applications before the Ontario Energy Board; 26 of those, I believe, have been approved to date. That's 40 more companies in the business than when the old Ontario Hydro was a full monopoly wires business, monopoly generating business and monopoly retailing business, and had 93% of the Ontario market. That's all been divided into separate companies. There's no cross-subsidization between them.

Hydro One, by the way, in the monopoly business, which is not competitive, just the wires-there's only one wire in front of your house. We don't run six wires across the field as if there was some competition in electrons; there isn't. There's one wire. Just like the CRTC, along with the federal government, controls Bell Canada's wires, the OEB is regulating Hydro One and municipalities who have been given the privilege of running monopoly wires businesses.

Mr Conway: Bullfeathers. Every day the Globe and Mail has another story. Today-

Interjection.

Mr Conway: Last week she said she couldn't hear.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock. Members will know that this member is usually quiet during this. He does not usually heckle people. He would appreciate the same courtesy.

I understand that sometimes when members get up who have heckled other people in the past, it is almost fair game. This is a member who is usually very quiet.

Supplementary?

Mr Conway: Every day the papers contain ads: today, a big ad from the energy board that your company, Hydro One, is out buying the distribution assets of the utility in Lanark Highlands. They've already got 42 either in place or about to be purchased.

We are seeing the re-monopolization of Ontario Hydro at a cost that is going to be considerable to the ratepayers. Just a few weeks ago the Canadian bond rating agency put out a bulletin saying, "Yes, Bill 100 is very good news for Hydro One." What's going on here? My colleague from Brant tells me, as other members are saying, that orderly restructuring of electricity distribution in their communities-Brant county is a good example-is being completely frustrated by your company. Ontario Hydro is out there skewing the works in their favour, and they can do so because your government, through Bill 35 and Bill 100, has given them an unfair advantage, and they are taking it at full sail.

By the way, we are apparently about to be told that your company is soon going to announce the takeover of some of the big utilities in 905, Brampton being the one I'm hearing about. So the question remains, you talk competition, but your company, the company you control, the company where you have a big vested interest, is out re-monopolizing the distribution system of much of this province. How is that happening, and why is that happening?

Hon Mr Wilson: I am astounded by the lack of facts from a former energy minister.

The distribution business in this province is a monopoly. They are wires. Just like Bell has telephone wires that are a monopoly, the federal government and the CRTC make sure that AT&T, Sprint and other companies can put their phone calls on those wires. But those wires are a monopoly, and the rates of return are controlled by a public interest body, in this case called the Ontario Energy Board. For the first time, by the way, consumers will be protected in the distribution wires business in this province.

Hydro One is a generic name for 25 different companies that are under there. If you read the ad the honourable member refers to, I think it's probably Hydro One Networks. By the way, Hydro One Networks buys back distribution systems-again, it's a monopoly; the rate of return is controlled by the Ontario Energy Board to protect consumers. I'm told that if all 70 of their applications actually went through, they would become approximately as large as they were in terms of the rural distribution system they owned in the old days under Ontario Hydro before the NDP introduced Bill 86 and started to sell-

The Speaker: Answer.

Hon Mr Wilson: -those distribution assets at below-market value, stealing assets from the old Ontario Hydro and giving them to municipalities. They'll have approximately 1.2 million customers when they're done, just like they did in the old days. So it's not a re-monopolization-

The Speaker: The minister's time is up.

SCHOOL EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington): My question is for the Minister of Education. Twice last week I met with students from Guelph Collegiate and Vocational Institute, from John F. Ross high school and from Centennial Collegiate and Vocational Institute. These students are clearly very upset, because teachers are withholding their co-instructional activities. The students who came to my office last week are confused as to what is going on.

The local union bargaining representative has told the local media that each teacher is making his or her own decision as to what, if any, co-instructional activities they will supervise. But when the students talk to the teachers themselves, they are saying the union has instructed them not to participate in co-instructional activities.

I have in my hand hundreds of names of students who are very upset about this matter. What do I tell these students who are caught between the conflicted feelings of their teachers and the political posturing of the union boss?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): Thank you for a very important question. I too have met and discussed this issue with a number of students. They're frustrated, and they should be. They should be angry, and they are angry. I have recommended and suggested that rather than walk out of class, it might be a little more helpful if they met with their student trustees and expressed their views that way, because they very much have a view which needs to be heard in this.

Unfortunately, we don't sit at the table to bargain those local agreements. In some communities, that local agreement, that local bargaining has resulted in solutions. We think those are very good; they've been very helpful. But at the same time, we are monitoring the situation, staying in touch with school boards in terms of what is occurring. I think we need to be very clear that we have literally thousands of teachers who are choosing to do this. In other communities, we have work to rule, which is not-

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

Mrs Elliott: I too am very sympathetic to these students. As a mother who has four kids who have gone through school, I know that for some students their extracurricular activities are just as important as the academic instruction they receive. These students have told me they are entitled to one school dance a year, no yearbook, and activities like sports, drama and band are cancelled. They are saying this is because of Bill 74.

Minister, would you clarify for my students in Wellington county what changes this government is making and why they were necessary?

Hon Mrs Ecker: We've been very clear with our education partners, as we were with the voters, that we were going to set educational quality standards. I've asked for advice and input on how best to do this, whether it's the new, tougher, more rigorous curriculum, whether it's the report card, whether it's standardized testing for students, whether it's the teacher testing program-all the initiatives we committed to the voters we would do. I've asked for input and advice on how best to do them.

But to choose to take out a political disagreement on the students, to work to rule, which unfortunately some teachers are doing, is not acceptable. We have literally thousands of teachers, even in Durham region, who are doing extracurriculars. When the students came to them and said, "We would like these activities," they did them.

We are being prudent in steps we are taking, because there are communities where they are settling and resolving these issues. But with school boards and the ministry, we will take additional steps if that is what is required.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Monte Kwinter (York Centre): I have a question to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Diesel fuel prices are continuing to rise. They went up 60% to 70% last year. They're still going up. This is causing great financial hardship to about 1,800 independent truckers in Ontario.

Last week, when you were asked a question by my colleague from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, you had the following to say:

"This government has certainly taken an active role by helping facilitate meetings within the industry itself and coming up with eventual answers that will address some of those concerns and some of those issues. I'm really pleased with the way that sectors of the industry have responded, and I think the surcharge rebate has been one of the highly rated topics, and many shippers have already come onside."

Minister, it's my understanding that the province of Ontario and the trucking industry have failed to reach an agreement on these surcharges. What are your plans now to avoid an economic disaster for these 1,800 independent truckers in Ontario?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I thank the honourable member for the question. Certainly it is a topic that has not only interested the independent truckers of this province but also individuals because we all feel the pinch at the gas pumps.

One of the things I have been saying all along is that I wanted to be a facilitator in making sure that we're bringing the groups together so we can address not only the fuel surcharge but also some of the other issues within the trucking industry.

We put together a working group. I'm happy to report that the working group has in fact met. There are two scheduled meetings this week that will address some of the other issues that we need to talk about as well as fuel charges.

As I said, I believe our government has to lead by example. In order to get the shippers onside, I think we as a government have to do our part, and we are doing that.

Mr Kwinter: Mr Minister, we are now faced with the prospect of truckers continuing their protests by parking their rigs along the side of the road and even taking it one step further and putting in place a complete blockade of Ontario's highways. If this were to happen, it would have a serious impact on Ontario's economy and a devastating effect on Ontario industries that depend on just-in-time delivery provided by Ontario's trucking industry.

You have also said-you said this in your response last week and you actually repeated it today-that your government is going to lead by example and that you are going to have to come to the table at one point or another. Minister, there are only three options, other than doing nothing, which seems to be what you're doing, and they are: cut taxes, offer subsidies or increase the fuel supply. Two of those three options are within your government's ability to aid Ontario's truckers and to help them cope with the soaring operating costs.

Mr Minister, the question I have for you is, when are you going to come to the table?

Hon Mr Palladini: I do believe that this is an opportunity for us to maintain calm. Certainly truckers in the province of Ontario have shown faith in our government's ability to facilitate the much-needed meetings that are going to be required to look at, again, not just the fuel surcharge issue but the overall industry within the industry.

We are addressing that. The working group, with Brock Smith as chair, is going to be facilitating these meetings with Industry Canada, with the Ministry of Transport of Canada as well, along with the shippers, the carriers and the petroleum people, to address not just the fuel surcharge but other issues within the industry. I would like to repeat that once more.

This government is leading by example because this government has come to the table and the announcement that this government made on Friday, going retroactive back to January 1-

The Speaker: The minister's time is up.

New question.

ONTARIO YOUTH COUNCIL

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question today is to Minister Marland, the minister responsible for children. Minister, I read recently in the paper of an important new initiative under your careful direction, the formation of the Ontario Youth Council. As a parent of five children, I can tell you this is an important opportunity for young people to have a real direct voice with you yourself.

I can tell you, and you would know as well that in my riding, in Durham, we have a lot of very effective young people who are looking forward to this opportunity of working and participating in government. Minister, could you tell me perhaps about the formation of the council and how it will operate and when it will take place? Now, I don't want to put you on the spot here, but can you assure me that there will be a place for one of my young people in Durham?

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [Children]): We are very excited about the Ontario Youth Council and we certainly need more than one minute to talk about it. But I will assure the member for Durham that there are indeed wonderful, bright, talented people all over this province, and we're looking forward to hearing from them through the children's secretariat Web site and through every member in this House's office.

You will all have received information about the Ontario Youth Council. We invite all secondary-school-aged students to apply for membership. We're looking forward to an enormous response, because as the minister responsible for children, it's going to help me be an advocate for children and youth at the cabinet table. We look forward to hearing from all the secondary-school-aged students in this province who are interested in advising and serving the government and the people of this province for their future.

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

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): The patients at the Northeastern Cancer Treatment Centre were angered by the Premier's comments last week about the northern health travel grant and asked me to present this petition.

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

I proudly affix my signature to this petition.

ADULT ENTERTAINMENT

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I've got a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas, by virtue of the common law, and the fact that the city of London is unable to give effect to the clear public interest in prohibiting businesses which offer adult entertainment services from operating within the city of London;

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

"The Legislature of the province of Ontario is hereby requested to consider the enactment of an amendment to

section 225 of the Municipal Act ... as amended, so as to authorize the council of a local municipality, at its option to prohibit the establishment of businesses which offer adult entertainment services at any location within the municipality if such a prohibition is deemed to be within the public interest, by bylaw duly enacted for that purpose."

The New Democratic Party supports this request. I have signed this petition on behalf of the NDP caucus here at Queen's Park, and I submit it to you now, sir.

DIABETES TREATMENT

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I rise today to present a petition in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas diabetes costs Canadian taxpayers a bundle. It is the leading cause of hospitalization in Canada. Some people with diabetes simply cannot afford the ongoing expense of managing diabetes. They cut corners to save money. They rip test strips in half, cut down on the number of times they test their blood, and even reuse lancets and needles. These budget-saving measures can often have disastrous health care consequences;

"Whereas persons with diabetes need and deserve financial assistance to cope with the escalating cost of managing diabetes. We think it is in all Ontarians' and the government's best interest to support diabetics with the supplies that each individual needs to obtain the best glucose control possible. As you all know, good control reduces or eliminates kidney failure by 50%, blindness by 76%, nerve damage by 60%, cardiac disease by 35% and even amputations. Just think how many dollars can be saved by the Ministry of Health if diabetics had a chance to gain optimum glucose control.

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

"We are suggesting that all diabetic supplies as prescribed by an endocrinologist be covered under the Ontario health insurance plan."

I affix my signature in support.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): This is but a small sample of parents from my particular riding.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, the Premier and the Minister of Education:

"Whereas the current school funding formula needs to be amended to allow for flexibility in considering unique qualities in inner-city neighbourhood schools; and

"Whereas the current formula will render vibrant city centres like Ottawa unattractive to families as a result of school closures;

"We therefore request an immediate review and amendment of the formula to address the unique situations of inner-city schools and ensure quality schools for all.

"In addition, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"We, the undersigned, strongly object to the closing of Ottawa's Elgin Street public school, a vital and essential part of the social, economic and civic life of our community. One less school downtown is one less reason for families to live downtown."

I affix my signature to this.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition that's signed by hundreds of people from my constituency regarding cancer care. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

I of course agree with this and I'd like to thank Gerry Lougheed Jr for all the work they've been doing to gather these signatures.

KARLA HOMOLKA

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

"That the government of Ontario will:

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

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

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

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

In agreement, I'm happy to sign my name to it.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I have a very special petition from a special young man by the name of Paul Dosen. He's a visually impaired young man from Bishop E.Q. Jennings school in Thunder Bay. He has sent me the petition in Braille and asked me to make sure the Premier sees it. It's related to his need to travel to Toronto when there's the lack of funding under the northern health travel grant. The petition reads:

"We believe that the people of northern Ontario should have their travel expenses (example: meals, hotel and transportation) paid for when they need to go elsewhere regarding their health care since the people of southern Ontario are getting all of their expenses covered when they come to Thunder Bay for cancer treatments."

It's signed by Paul Dosen of Bishop E.Q. Jennings school, and he's managed to get hundreds of others to do so as well. I'm very proud to sign this on Paul's behalf.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have further petitions from CAW Local 222 in Oshawa, forwarded to me by Cathy Walker, the director of the national health and safety department. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaker, I and my NDP colleagues continue to support these petitioners.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I have a petition with close to 3,000 names.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Mohawk people of Tyendinaga are opposed to Canadian Waste Services Inc expansion, Richmond township;

"Whereas the Mohawk people of Tyendinaga are very concerned over US waste coming to our area for disposal;

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

"The Mohawk people of Tyendinaga do not support any expansion plans presented by Canadian Waste Services Inc. We do not want a legacy of pollution to flow through our rivers and creeks for many decades to come as a result of the Canadian Waste Services Inc landfill disposal operations in Richmond township. Please stop the dump expansion in Richmond township."

I am pleased to add my name to this petition.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore

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

I affix my signature to it. I agree with the petitioners and I'd like to thank Gerry Lougheed for all his efforts to gather these signatures.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): "To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the Espanola area services a population of 12,000 people and government statistics project a growth in population over the age of 75 to reach an estimated 336 by the year 2003;

"Whereas the long-term formula for the distribution of long-term-care beds would indicate a need for between 59 and 76 beds by the year 2003;

"Whereas just 30 long-term-care beds exist in the Espanola area with the result that a lengthy waiting list already exists and people are being placed in long-term-care facilities far distant from their home communities;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Minister of Health and Long-Term Care and the Ontario government to immediately approve a proposal by the Espanola General Hospital, supported by the Algoma, Cochrane, Manitoulin and Sudbury District Health Council for an additional 34 beds in Espanola."

I'm proud to affix my signature to this petition.

FARMFARE PROGRAM

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have a petition forwarded to me by Stan Raper, representative of the United Farm Workers. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario introduced farmfare on September 21, 1999, to supplement their workfare program, forcing social assistance recipients to work on farms for their benefits;

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

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

"Whereas this exclusion is currently being appealed under the Canadian Charter of Rights for infringing on the right of association and equal benefit of law;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to retract the farmfare program until hearings have been held and to reinstate the right of agricultural workers to allow them basic human rights protection under the labour code of Ontario."

I proudly add my name to those of these petitioners.

HUNTING IN WILDERNESS PARKS

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I have a petition signed by hundreds of my constituents.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

I'm very pleased to sign my name to this petition.

OPPOSITION DAY

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have an opposition day motion which reads as follows:

Be it resolved that the Ontario Legislature demand that the Minister of the Environment use the statutory powers entrusted to him to prevent the creation or operation of a waste management facility at the Adams mine site in Kirkland Lake until the following conditions are met: a full environmental assessment has determined that there will be no negative impact on the region's groundwater; and the residents of the region confirm through referenda that they are in fact a willing host for the shipment of waste to their community;

Be it further resolved that the Ontario Legislature demand that the Minister of the Environment keep his promise not to extend the operating licence of the Keele Valley landfill site.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr McGuinty moves opposition day number 1. The Chair recognizes Mr McGuinty, the leader of the official opposition, representing Ottawa South.

Mr McGuinty: Mr Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to speak to a very important motion.

Ontario Liberals believe that one of the most important things we can do for our families is to protect our drinking water. At its heart, this motion is all about the protection of our drinking water. As a matter of fundamental principle, the clean water that can be found today in Ontario is not ours to destroy, poison or pollute. The way we see it in our party, the water present today in Ontario is to be held by us in trust for future generations of Ontarians. In a very real sense, it is not ours to do with as we please. We sense a very heavy responsibility to act as trustees of that water.

We are nothing more than interim trustees and temporary guardians. I believe that at the end of the day our children and our grandchildren and generations after that are going to be entitled to put to us some very tough questions such as, "What did you do when the government of the day proposed to move forward with the Adams mine dump site?" That's a very important question that all of us are going to have to be able to answer. That's fundamentally what this motion is all about.

This chamber is, of course, a very partisan place most of the time. That's hardly a surprise. From time to time, to be frank, motions are brought forward to put a government in a tough spot. But this motion-and this is very important-is not a trick. What it is, is a test. It's a test to see whether the government has learned anything at all from the Walkerton water tragedy. It's a test to see whether the government is now prepared to do whatever is necessary to protect Ontarians' water. And it's a test to see whether the government is now prepared to do the right thing on behalf of both today's and tomorrow's Ontarians. Let me explain.

In Walkerton, sadly, six people died, thousands became seriously ill and a town's social and economic life was devastated all because poison got into the drinking water. That community, if you can imagine this, is still without safe and clean drinking water, and this is more than four months later. As an aside, but very tellingly, during those same four months this government has managed to find $12 million for partisan political advertising, but they were only able to scrape up $6 million to help the people of Walkerton get the water back on.

A full public inquiry under Justice O'Connor is about to begin its work, and we will not prejudge its findings. But we already know that people died because deadly bacteria got into the water that came out of people's taps. That much we do know. We may not know what part of the system failed but, sadly, we know that the system failed, and failed in a horrific way. People died from contaminated drinking water. That's a fact; it's a tragic fact. Poison got into the water, and more than four months later the government still can't get it out of the water. Those two are the tragic facts.

Given those facts, one would assume that the government would now move heaven and earth in an effort to protect Ontario's water, in an effort to make sure that poison doesn't get into the water in the first place. But instead of moving heaven and earth to protect our water, the Mike Harris government seems hell-bent on moving southern Ontario's garbage up north in a scheme that does not go nearly far enough to protect our water. This government has determined to ship Toronto's garbage to Kirkland Lake so it can be dumped into an open pit that is one kilometre long, half a kilometre wide and 55 storeys deep.

Imagine that for a moment-55 storeys deep, to be filled with garbage. It's not so much a pit as it is a lake, because the pit has filled with water. The bottom of the lake is now rock with cracks in it. Those cracks connect what is inside the pit, whether that may be water or toxic dump leachate, with underground channels of water. Those underground channels in turn flow directly into rivers feeding Lake Timiskaming, which in turn flows into the Ottawa River. We are about to create the largest dump in North America, capable of creating the greatest liquid toxic runoff in North American history.

We're going to take that dump and put it on top of a series of channels; we're going to put it on top of a series of pipelines that run into our drinking water supply.

Remember, this is a test, fundamentally, to see whether the government has learned anything at all from the Walkerton tragedy. It's a test to see whether the government will now act to protect our water from being polluted in the first place. This is the upstream issue. It's about doing everything we can to make sure water doesn't become polluted in the first place. The dump owner has proposed that a system of pumps be installed around the garbage. These pumps, untested and unproven, will have to continue to work without fail for at least the next 100 years. How could we possibly take that sort of chance?

How could we, now living in the post-Walkerton world, even consider taking that kind of a chance?

I have a tremendous amount of faith in human ingenuity, but to ask me to believe that during the next 100 years, regardless of what Mother Nature happens to throw at us during those 100 years, we humans can keep toxic runoff from entering into our drinking water is asking too much.

This motion calls for a full environmental assessment to ensure that there is no negative impact on the region's groundwater. The government-and the minister did this again today during question period-continues to assert that there has already been a full assessment. I can tell you that is not true. The Adams mine was the first dump site to go through a new process after the Mike Harris government gutted the Environmental Assessment Act of 1996. The assessment that was done up there in connection with this particular dump was incomplete and inconclusive and it was rushed.

Previous environmental assessment hearings, in considering whether or not a new dump site is environmentally safe and sound and secure, have taken about 100 days. The hearings in connection with this matter were only two weeks and one day. The assessment that was done was incomplete and the results were inconclusive.

Surely one of the things that the Walkerton tragedy fairly shouts out to us here is that it is irresponsible. It is dangerous to proceed with this dump on the basis of incomplete and inconclusive results. Walkerton tells us that when it comes to protecting our water we must be absolutely sure; there can be no doubt; we can take no risks. Surely that's what Walkerton tells us.

Our motion also calls for the residents of the region to have a say. We want a referendum to determine that they are in fact truly willing hosts. There was a referendum held there in 1991 asking if people wanted to have an environmental assessment. At that time, promises were made to the people that a second referendum would be held after the assessment. Now that the assessment has turned out to be incomplete and inconclusive, people there want a say. In fact, they're demanding a say.

If government members vote against our motion, you are saying that the people living up in that community, in the Kirkland Lake region, should not have a say. You're saying that they shouldn't have a say when their small northern Ontario community is about to become host to the largest dump in North America, with the potential of releasing the greatest amount of toxic leachate in the history of North America. Again, I say to the government members opposite, this is a test to see whether you've learned anything from Walkerton.

You will recall that before the Walkerton tragedy people inside and outside of government warned the government that a drinking water disaster was going to happen. The government didn't listen then and so far they're not listening now.

From time to time I am asked, and members of my party are asked, "What would you do with the garbage?" It's a fair question. I can tell you that, for starters, we would not proceed with the Adams mine dump unless there was irrefutable evidence proving it would not poison our water. Walkerton was not lost on us. It may have been lost on the government, but it was not lost on us.

Here's what else we would do. There are three things in particular. First of all, Ontario Liberals would launch a major province-wide effort to divert more garbage from landfills. Secondly, we would encourage new technologies for eliminating waste. Thirdly, we would examine other short-term options for Toronto, including shipping more of the waste to the US, while we ramp up our diversion programs.

Let's take a look at these, one at a time, and with just a bit of luck the government members may acquire some education on these matters.

Let's look at diverting garbage from landfills. This is a tough thing for cities like Toronto to do now because the Mike Harris government has eliminated a $30-million municipal recycling program. This government has done nothing to encourage the private sector to do its share to reduce and recycle garbage. You collect $40 million a year from the 10-cents-a-bottle environmental levy on LCBO products, but you've committed only $9 million to reducing waste. They're committing less than 25% of the money they collect to reducing waste.

Ontario-and I say this with a great source of pride from years past-used to lead the continent in environmental protection. Now we're falling far behind. Listen to what they're doing in the rest of Canada. BC, Alberta and Saskatchewan have sweeping beverage container deposit regulations. Nova Scotia has banned all organic materials such as grass clippings and food waste from their landfills. Quebec is moving toward 65% waste diversion. Here in Ontario, we are stuck at 32%.

Halifax diverts 60%; Edmonton, 60%. These cities have put in place comprehensive plans, but most importantly, those plans are supported by their provincial governments. Toronto is only diverting 25% of its waste, but is it any wonder? Toronto, like all other Ontario communities, has effectively been abandoned by the Mike Harris government when it comes to responsible management of our waste.

I know for a fact, having spoken to many representatives at the municipal level in Toronto, that this community would love to do better on garbage diversion. But it needs the provincial government's assistance. It needs the provincial government to play a leadership role.

There is a lot of good news out there, particularly when it comes to some of the new technologies that are up and running. There's a company in Guelph that is already taking much of Guelph's garbage but was shut out of Toronto's site selection process-the SUBBOR company. Their technology has been used extensively in Europe, and it uses naturally occurring bacteria to break down garbage into harmless gases. Canada Composting is building a $26-million methane digestion test facility in Newmarket and a $10-million test facility in Toronto.

New technologies are being developed, but this innovation has to be encouraged and nurtured by this government. Instead, the government members want to make a 100-year commitment to the continent's biggest garbage dump. I ask government members opposite, is that really the legacy you want to leave to our children, to generations of Ontarians?

We understand it's going to take some time to ramp up new diversion initiatives, and we understand the pressure being felt by local representatives in the city of Toronto. We understand that. But I say to you, a bad solution is no solution. If the provincial government provides leadership, and if the provincial government were to provide its share of financial support, municipalities such as Toronto and the private sector can achieve aggressive diversion goals.

The government members opposite might say, "Well, this costs money. Where are we going to get the money?" In the last three years, this government has spent $185 million on partisan political advertising. That's a lot of money, and it seems to me that if we were to devote even some of that money to these kinds of initiatives-aggressive diversion programs-province-wide, we would be in a position to be on the cutting edge rather than be lagging behind as we are now.

We oppose expansion of the Keele dump. But it's not slated to close for another two years. That gives us a bit of breathing space. It gives us some time to improve our garbage diversion and look at some other short-term options, including shipping more of Toronto's garbage to the US on a temporary basis.

I want to contrast our approach with the Mike Harris government's approach when it comes to dealing with Ontario's garbage. First of all, I believe we should be doing absolutely everything we can to prevent another Walkerton. That means assigning the highest possible priority to protection of our water. The Mike Harris government is showing no sign of learning the Walkerton lesson. This government has still failed to hire the inspectors and enforcement officers that it fired in the past, people who have the special responsibility to make sure our water is safe.

Second, I believe the Ontario government should provide strong leadership by supporting waste diversion in our cities and towns. The Mike Harris government has abandoned our communities. He has told them that when it comes to dealing with their garbage, "You're on your own." We think that's wrong.

Third, I believe we should make Ontario a haven for the development of new waste-management technology. The possibilities in that regard are endless. All we need is some indication of genuine leadership on the part of the government and we can unleash human ingenuity. We have not done nearly enough inside this province to divert our waste in the way they have in other jurisdictions. On the other hand, Mike Harris and his government are content to continue throwing garbage into the ground regardless of the risks.

Finally, I believe we should not proceed with the Adams mine dump site because the risk to our water, and by extension the risks to the health of Ontarians, is simply too great. I wouldn't take that risk. Obviously Mike Harris is prepared to take that risk.

So I ask the members opposite-in fact, I implore the members opposite and I challenge the members opposite-to prove me wrong. Show that you and your government have learned from the tragedy in Walkerton. Prove me wrong. Show you will now jealously guard the right of Ontarians, not only the generations alive today but those yet to come, to enjoy safe drinking water. Show you now understand that today's garbage can be tomorrow's poisoned drinking water. Show you can do the right thing, government members. Pass the test and pass this motion.

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): Let me begin by stating that this government stands 100% behind the decision to approve the Adams mine landfill. We have the utmost confidence in the integrity of the environmental assessment process, and we stand behind the numerous technical reviews that have been done on the design of the landfill. We also have confidence in the decisions that have been made by the Environmental Assessment Board with respect to the environmental assessment of this proposal and by the director on the Environmental Protection Act approval.

The decisions of the Environmental Assessment Board were reached after thorough reviews of the issues and information. I'd like to take a few moments, for all the members present, to outline the process that was brought to us and where we are