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

May 31, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-May-31 (PDF)

L064 - Wed 31 May 2000 / Mer 31 mai 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WATER QUALITY

EVENTS IN DURHAM

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

YORK CENTRAL HOSPITAL

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

MEMBER'S WEB SITE

KYLE PETTEY

WASTE DISPOSAL

MAURICE RICHARD

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'INDEMNISATION DES VICTIMES D'ACTES CRIMINELS

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

HUMAN TISSUE GIFT AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LE DON DE TISSUS HUMAINS

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FEDERAL HEALTH CARE SPENDING

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

PREMIER'S ATTENDANCE

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

ORAL QUESTIONS

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

DRINKING WATER SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

WOMEN'S SHELTERS

LOW WATER LEVELS

ST CLAIR PARKWAY COMMISSION

CORRECTION OF RECORD

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

PETITIONS

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

LORD'S PRAYER

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

KARLA HOMOLKA

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

KARLA HOMOLKA

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

KARLA HOMOLKA

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

LORD'S PRAYER

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WATER QUALITY

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): Events in Walkerton over the last couple of weeks have made all of us not just sad but have left us with many questions and, in particular, have given a whole new meaning to the area and to the cause of red tape and cutting of red tape.

Many of us have always followed this Red Tape Commission and looked at the kinds of things that were being advanced as simple bureaucracy, needless bureaucracy, that in fact are turning into what really is life and death on many fronts, in particular the area of the environment. Where I come from, the Great Lakes cleanup is a perfect example, where both the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of the Environment have made cuts, significant staff cuts, budgetary cuts, that have resulted in less being available for cleanup and, frankly, less availability of people who are in the business of cleanup and ensuring that legal levels of toxins are even acceptable.

What we are seeing in Windsor now is a rise in the level of mercury in the Detroit River. What we see now is that local councillors who are participating in committees are begging the province to come to the table. In fact, they are not even meeting the obligation they signed on to in agreements with the Canadian government.

I would like to call on the Ministers of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources to do a complete review of all of the cuts they have made as they relate to the cleanup of the Detroit River, to its obligations to international agreements which they signed on to and now are not coming to the table and fulfilling.

EVENTS IN DURHAM

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm pleased to rise today to inform the House of an upcoming event in my riding of Durham. The Lake Scugog Historical Society has once again organized an annual Steamboats on the Scugog Festival, which will be held on June 9, 10 and 11.

The festival takes place at Port Perry, which is located on Lake Scugog, part of the Trent-Severn system. Over 50 steamships are known to have plied these waters, and the festival celebrates the age of steamship, antique boats and nautical history in general.

The organizing committee of Ken Gadsden, Mike McGill, Jim Musselman, Bruce Aikens and the chairman, Paul Arculus, has been hard at work putting together this outstanding community event. The Port Perry Chamber of Commerce and Port Perry Business Improvement Association have supported the efforts of this committee.

This year's event will feature the legendary steamboat from the 1951 movie African Queen. The steamboat's owners Jim and Barb Hendricks will be towing the 30-foot steamer all the way from Florida to attend the event.

Also on hand will be Woodwind Yachts, with a display of their boat restorations, classic and antique steamboats from across the province, the Antique Outboard Motor Club and model engineer clubs from across the Kawarthas and the province. The Port Perry High School band will provide entertainment.

The nautical events in Port Perry don't stop there. Our annual Canoe the Nonquon event will take place this Saturday morning. This fundraiser for the Scugog Shores Historical Museum is the province's oldest continually running canoe race.

I encourage all boat lovers across the province to attend the festival of boats in Port Perry in my riding of Durham.

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): Before I begin my statement, I'd like to acknowledge a group of distinguished visitors from my great riding of Toronto Centre-Rosedale who are in the west members' gallery.

My member's statement is on the subject of the situation in the town of Walkerton, and I would like to convey my sympathies to the people in that town.

Yesterday in this House Ontarians were treated to an incredible display of Tory arrogance. Not only did the Premier suggest to the people of Walkerton this soothing sound bite, "The procedures in place were sound," but he also defended the view that it is appropriate for an accused party to investigate itself. This from a government that purports to be tough on crime.

We witnessed the cabal of dumped Tory cabinet ministers laughing up a storm while this Legislature was engaged in the debate about the tragic events in Walkerton. Then, to top it all off, we had the member for Brampton Centre, the same member who sponsored a bill to audit food banks, offering the following comeback to passionate demands for an independent inquiry: He said that's the way it's going to be because "we're the government and you're the opposition." I got in his face outside the Legislature, and I'll be in Brampton tonight, where I'll put it on the record again.

He is under the mistaken impression that a majority government absents him and his party from being held accountable for the impact of their decisions-decisions which have contributed to death.

YORK CENTRAL HOSPITAL

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): I am very pleased to report that the York Central Hospital, which serves my riding of Thornhill, is preparing to open its new $25-million Continuing Care and Rehabilitation Centre. This is a much-needed complex which will greatly benefit the residents of Thornhill. At capacity, the building will contain 116 long-term-care beds, 90 complex continuing care beds, 32 rehabilitation beds, a dialysis unit, an adult day program and a child daycare centre.

The facility is among the most modern of its kind in central Ontario, going beyond what is traditionally offered at a nursing home. Providing opportunities for intergenerational activities, the presence of a child care centre on the ground floor provides 60 care spaces for children of hospital staff and the community. The centre also features an outdoor play area, rest and dining areas. Also on the first floor will be an intergenerational chapel, rehabilitation assessment and treatment areas, patient dining and lounge rooms, an outdoor patio and recreation area and solarium.

Every patient room features a large window, and 60% of rooms are single occupancy, while the rest accommodate two patients. Wheelchair-accessible balconies also permit residents to get outside for fresh air.

The first residents will move in on June 6, and the centre will officially open on June 26. They will be gradually placed over a four-to-six-week period so that staff and residents may become accustomed to the facility. This centre will be a tremendous asset to Thornhill.

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): I rise today to express my sympathy to the families of Walkerton who have lost family members due to the negligent manner in which this government has proceeded with cuts to the Ministry of the Environment.

On March 13, after confirmation from the MOE local rep that the village of Cumberland had sewage and water problems that could affect the health of the community, the mayor wrote to the minister requesting assistance. The minister wrote back two months later stating that the provincial water protection fund was created to help municipalities, but there was no more money available for the village of Cumberland. Today we have 20 families in the village of Cumberland and 60 families in the village of Osgoode that have been told by the Ottawa-Carleton medical officer to boil their water due to coliforms found when their water was tested.

Are we going to wait until we have another Walkerton in eastern Ontario or is this government prepared to admit their mistakes and reinstate the responsibility for testing back to the provincial level? Mr Sterling said that his government should have done more when handing over the responsibility for water testing to the private sector. I beg the minister to act immediately for the villages of Cumberland and Osgoode to ensure that we don't have any more deaths due to the negligence of this government. Enough is enough.

MEMBER'S WEB SITE

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I rise today to share with the Legislature and with the larger community of Ontario out there something that I launched in my own community from my constituency office last Wednesday, and that is the existence now of a Web site that people can plug into and get information from and communicate with me on a variety of issues. The address of the Web site is www.tonymartinmpp.com and one of the first offerings on that site is a newsletter I put out this past week that focuses on a couple of things I think we need to enter into dialogue about.

One certainly is the economy, and the other is the Canadian narrative: where it is that we're going, and are we keeping in the spirit of the story that our forefathers developed and that we have worked so hard to develop over a number of years.

Under the area of the economy, I believe that together we can build a strong, vibrant community where our businesses, labour, institutions and families can flourish. Leo Gerard calls it the "real economy." Much more that a dot.com virtual company, the real economy is based on real work by real people making real products. We need to talk about that. You can talk to me about that by plugging into my Web site.

I also talk about the story we've all spent so much time and effort developing, the Canadian story, which is about community and co-operation as opposed to individual pursuit and competition. I think we need to get back to that. I want to hear from people about that.

KYLE PETTEY

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise in the House today to once again pay tribute to Kyle Pettey. Kyle Pettey is an outstanding young man and a successful athlete who resides in my riding of Northumberland. When I brought your attention to Kyle back in October, he was in Australia competing at the Southern Cross World Games. When he returned home from that event, he was proudly wearing a gold medal around his neck.

Today I'm pleased to announced that Kyle has set a new world record in the discus throw at 35.96 metres. This record was set at his first track-and-field event this year in Sarnia on May 13. This new record places Kyle in a good position to qualify for the Canadian Paralympic team and compete at the Year 2000 Olympics in Australia.

Despite being diagnosed with cerebral palsy and breaking his back in a farming accident, Kyle has managed to beat the odds and become one of Canada's top amateur athletes. I applaud him for all his successes and I hope that Kyle will be selected to join the national team.

I know, Mr Speaker, that you join in extending our best wishes to Kyle, his coach, John Potts, and his family. His family and Mr Potts have been tremendously supportive in this young man's athletic endeavours.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): In the wake of the Walkerton tragedy, we have learned of another frightening situation in Hillsburgh, Ontario, a farming community near Fergus, where a portable toilet operation is proposing to dump untreated human waste on a field it owns in the town.

This property is situated on one of the higher elevations in the area and is located between two branches of the West Credit River, and north of the property is a source of the Grand River. Within a one-kilometre radius of the site, and inevitably the recipients of a waste runoff, are a public school, a subdivision of approximately 35 homes, which all rely on wells for their drinking water, and a site where a water bottling company is extracting water. This field's runoff ends up in three separate creeks and a small lake.

Believe it or not, it gets worse. Apparently the owner of this company is planning not just to spread the waste from his own toilet but is also contracting to haul additional sewage to the site for untreated dumping.

I don't think it is necessary for me to paint a detailed picture of the toxic cocktail that would be produced as a result of this dumping and the potential consequences that would result if this project is allowed to proceed. While this proposal is currently being reviewed by Ministry of the Environment officials, local residents fear that the criteria for review do not adequately address such important considerations as site elevation and the possibility of water contamination.

On behalf of the residents in the area and in the interest of protecting public health, I call on the Ministry of the Environment to ensure that this extremely dangerous dumping plan is not allowed to proceed.

MAURICE RICHARD

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean): Today in the city of Montreal a great Canadian and an exemplary citizen is laid to rest. He was also a pretty fair hockey player. For those of us old enough to remember black-and-white television, we remember his prowess as a player and we appreciate the accolades bestowed upon him today. We also understand the admiration demonstrated by the thousands who expressed their public condolences in the past three days.

Maurice Richard continually reminded each and every one of us that he was just a hockey player, and yet today we witness a show of respect usually only afforded to the passing of a head of state. In a shy and reserved but very dignified manner, Mr Richard became an ambassador for the game he loved, an ambassador for the province and the country he loved, a true icon who embodied the spirit of his people in the 1950s and carried it through to the new millennium. The game has seen people with more God-given talent, but mine eyes have never seen his equal as an athlete.

A former linemate of the Rocket's once told me: "He could make us win when we thought we wanted to quit. He could carry an entire team on his back without a word, just an icy stare."

We in Ontario join with all Canadians in expressing our sincere condolences to the entire Richard family. We also express our thanks for allowing Canadians the opportunity to express the public outpouring of respect recorded in the last three days.

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to recognize members of a delegation who are here from the chamber of commerce in Sarnia-Lambton.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): It's not a point of order, but we're very pleased to have our visitors here with us today.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr4,

An Act respecting the Certified General Accountants Association of Ontario.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'INDEMNISATION DES VICTIMES D'ACTES CRIMINELS

Mr Duncan moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 80,

An Act to amend the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act to remove maximums for compensation awards to victims / Projet de loi 80, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'indemnisation des victimes d'actes criminels pour supprimer le plafonnement des indemnités accordées aux victimes.

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

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Robert Montfortin of my riding was severely injured in 1971 as the result of a crime. He was stabbed viciously on a number of occasions. Under the existing act that compensates victims of crime, his compensation will be cut off by this government as of June 1. I have written to the Attorney General on numerous occasions, sought meetings for Mr Montfortin, sought to have the government intervene and they stubbornly refuse to do this.

We on this side of the House want to stand up for the victims of crime, unlike the all talk, no action crowd opposite.

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

Mrs Ecker moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 81,

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

Loi sur la profession enseignante.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): 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.

HUMAN TISSUE GIFT AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LE DON DE TISSUS HUMAINS

Ms Lankin moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 82,

An Act to amend the Human Tissue Gift Act to establish a routine referral system to coordinate activities relating to tissue donation on death / Projet de loi 82, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le don de tissus humains afin d'établir un système de notification systématique destiné à coordonner les activités relatives au don de tissus au moment d'un décès.

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

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): This bill amends the Human Tissue Gift Act by adding a new

part IV to establish routine referral systems to coordinate activities related to tissue donation on death.

A new Ontario tissue donation agency will operate a province-wide register of consent and work with health facilities to ensure that opportunities for donation are not missed. The steps to be taken by such health facilities, when potential donors in their care die or are near death, are set out in detail. If consent is refused, no further action may be taken.

The bill also amends the Health Insurance Act to require that a person 16 years of age or older to whom a health card is issued must first have an opportunity to give or refuse consent to tissue donation on death.

Currently in Ontario there are over 1,700 people awaiting organ transplants. Also currently in Ontario we do less than 300 transplants a year. In other jurisdictions, like Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Arizona, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Tennessee, Illinois, and European countries, this kind of legislation has increased tissue and organ donation by over 50%. It's the gift of life. I'm hopeful that the Legislature will see fit to pass this bill.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): I move that, notwithstanding the order of the House dated May 29, 2000, the House not sit today from 6:45 pm to 9:30 pm.

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

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding private members' public business.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Do we unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that not withstanding standing order 96(g), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item 29.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): Next on your list will be ministerial statements, and today we're having two statements from the Minister of Education and the Minister of Health. I would seek unanimous consent that the Attorney General also be allowed to give a statement without supplying a written copy to the opposition parties as required by the standing orders.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: My understanding is that the Attorney General will be announcing the appointment of a public inquiry that we've been demanding for four days. I would ask the government House leader, would it not be appropriate for the Premier of Ontario to stand in this House and announce the appointment of that public inquiry?

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The request is for the Attorney General. Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FEDERAL HEALTH CARE SPENDING

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I rise today to report to the members of this House on yesterday's meeting of provincial and territorial health ministers in Quebec City.

Yesterday, the provincial and territorial health ministers demonstrated once again their firm commitment to a publicly funded health system in Canada, and also to continue with health care reform and innovation. They are also committed to continuing to work together collaboratively to meet the health care needs of Canadians.

It is no small accomplishment that all the provinces and territories of Canada remain united in seeking the unconditional restoration of federal funding for health care. In our joint statement released yesterday, the provinces and the territories unanimously agreed to four points:

First was the immediate, unconditional reinstatement of the Canada health and social transfer to the 1994-95 level of funding.

Second was that there be an appropriate escalator attached to CHST funding.

Third, the provinces expressed their continued commitment to exploring the innovation and adaptation necessary to ensure the sustainability of a quality, publicly funded health care system in Canada.

Finally, we reviewed a draft report on factors driving costs in the health care system and we agreed to forward the report to our Premiers after final revisions.

Once again, at the conclusion of this meeting, all of the provinces and territories unanimously agreed to ask the federal government to do its share for health care in this country. Full restoration of the $4.2-billion cut from the CHST, and an appropriate escalator, is a very modest request in light of the challenges we are all facing.

The provinces and territories are all working very hard to improve and update our health care systems. We are doing what is needed to respond to an aging and a growing population, and all of the provinces and the territories are responding to the increasing demands for new services, new technologies, new drugs, and for new and costly procedures as well as increasing public expectations.

As health ministers, we want to move forward to restore the confidence of the people of Canada in their health care system. Our position is clear: All want immediate action for health funding from the federal government.

The provinces have committed to the reform and the innovation that has been asked for, and now we await a commitment from our partner, the federal government.

In Montreal, in Markham, and now in Quebec City, the provincial and territorial health ministers of this country have remained united in their request, and we will remain united in the days and months to come. We will continue to seek restored federal health care funding from Ottawa to ensure that all Canadians can rely on an effective, publicly funded health care system now and in the future.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): Parents, students and teachers have told us they want their schools to be safe, respectful environments for learning and teaching. I am sure every member would agree that students, teachers, staff and parents have the right to be safe and to feel safe in their schools.

We have clearly heard those concerns. We are taking action, as promised, to ensure that respect, responsibility and safety are a fundamental part of our education system.

The Safe Schools Act that I have introduced today addresses behaviour, discipline and safety in our schools. If passed, this proposed legislation would give legal authority to the provincial code of conduct and related safe school initiatives that I announced last month.

The proposed amendments will fulfill our government's commitment to make Ontario schools safer by promoting respect, responsibility and civility; by setting clear, consistent province-wide standards of behaviour; and by setting clear consequences for not meeting those standards.

Just as we have rights as citizens, we also have responsibilities. The provincial code of conduct sets clear, consistent province-wide standards of behaviour for everyone involved in the education system. Many school boards have varying codes and rules for safety, but this legislation will ensure that there are clear province-wide standards, especially for the most serious infractions, like bringing weapons to school.

In addition to the province-wide code of conduct, school boards will continue to establish their own procedures and set consequences for less serious infractions.

This government believes that parents and community members are important partners in the education system. Their involvement makes a difference in their schools and in their child's achievements. This legislation clearly recognizes that role by ensuring that school councils be involved when a school board is developing its code of conduct and safe school policy.

People have told us they want classrooms that are conducive to a respectful learning environment and schools that promote responsibility on the part of our students. In order to accomplish this, teachers need to have the authority to take action in their own classroom, and principals need to do the same for their school. That is why the proposed act would give teachers the authority to suspend students for one day. Suspensions that warrant more than a day will be referred to the school principal.

Principals, as is the current practice, would continue to be able to suspend students for up to 20 school days, but the legislation would also extend to principals the right to expel students for up to one year.

As I said when I first introduced the code, every use of authority must be balanced with the appropriate process, so the legislation will give parents or guardians the right to appeal suspensions and expulsions by school boards or principals.

The proposed legislation also sets mandatory requirements for students who have been expelled to attend strict-discipline or equivalent programs in order to re-enter the regular school system. Parents and guardians want to see appropriate programs for students who have been suspended or expelled from school. This government agrees. Sending them out on the street only puts the problem somewhere else.

We recognize that teachers can't teach and students can't learn if they fear for their safety, and in too many classrooms across the province this is still the case. These amendments would allow for such things as criminal background checks of anyone working in a school to better ensure the safety of students, staff and volunteers.

Incidents of school violence are often started by outside troublemakers. Many parents, students and teachers have told me they believe a school dress code or uniform is not only a good way to encourage respect and responsibility but that it also contributes to a safe school environment. These amendments would give the government the ability to issue guidelines to school boards which would allow a majority of parents at any school in Ontario to have a dress code or require a uniform for their children. Principals would also be given authority to ensure that anyone who poses a threat is denied access to school property.

Finally, in order to instill pride and respect, the proposed amendments would also require schools to include the singing of O Canada as part of their daily opening or closing exercises. As well, schools may include the daily recitation of a pledge of citizenship.

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Ecker: These amendments are about making the rules of behaviour and the consequences clear to everyone, something the opposition over there could use today. They clarify the roles and responsibilities we all have to ensure safety and respect in our schools.

The amendments I have introduced build on previous reforms we have made to ensure that Ontario schools deliver the best education possible for all of our students. It is another step in making sure that Ontario's publicly funded education system is not only the safest but the best that it can be.

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The Premier has today announced that in order to get to the bottom of the Walkerton tragedy the Ontario government will appoint a judge or a retired judge to a commission of inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock, please. We have a very important statement that the people of this province want to hear and, as we did yesterday, we are not going to put up with people yelling and screaming during that period of time. This is a statement that the people of this province want to hear, and they deserve to hear it.

Hon Mr Flaherty: As I was mentioning, in order to get to the bottom of the Walkerton tragedy, the Ontario government will appoint a judge or a retired judge as a commission of inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act. The Premier stated today that the families of Walkerton victims demand answers; the Ontario public demands answers; and he indicated that of course he demands answers. That's why he has called for a full, open and public review of what went wrong and why.

As a result, the government has decided that the open and public review for which the Premier has called should take the form of a broad commission of inquiry. The Premier has asked me as Attorney General to draft the broad terms of reference for the commission. The commission should examine what went wrong in Walkerton in order to prevent a similar tragedy from occurring. I expect to announce details of the commission within 10 days. Under the Public Inquiries Act, a commission is appointed by cabinet and has full power to determine the procedure to be followed at the inquiry.

Hearings on an inquiry are generally open, and the commission has the power to summon witnesses, compel the production of documents and receive sworn testimony.

In the hope that it's of some assistance to the House, I'll comment a bit further on the nature of public inquiries in Ontario. In Ontario, an inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act may be called when the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers it expedient with respect to a matter connected with or affecting good government in Ontario, the conduct of public business or the administration of justice. The practice and procedure of an inquiry is controlled by the commissioner. Hearings are open to the public, with narrow exceptions.

Interested persons must be given an opportunity to give evidence, to call, examine and cross-examine witnesses. Before a finding of misconduct can be made against an individual, that individual must be given reasonable notice and must be allowed full opportunity to be heard during the inquiry in person or by council. The commission has the power to compel by summons and to state a case to the court for contempt in the event of a failure to obey a summons.

No evidence given by a witness at an inquiry shall be used against that individual or be receivable into evidence in any trial or proceeding against him or her thereafter, except for a prosecution for perjury. Testimony and evidence given subject to privilege is not admissible into evidence. A commissioner may appoint investigators and apply to the court for search warrants.

A recent example of a public inquiry in Ontario with respect to which members will be familiar was the inquiry by Mr Justice Kaufman into the Morin prosecution. For details with respect to the procedures on public inquiries, I would invite members to have reference to the Public Inquiries Act itself, which of course is in the revised statutes of Ontario at

chapter P.41, which sets out the powers of the commissioner, the procedures to be followed and so on in more detail than I have indicated today.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I say this in the sincerest way possible, with no disrespect to the Attorney General. This is really a statement that should have been delivered today by the Premier. This is a crisis of overwhelming proportions. Two more people have died as a result of this tragedy since we last met in this chamber yesterday. It may very well be that the toll is up to nine once all of the facts come out. A community has been nothing less than devastated, and people throughout Ontario at this point have had their confidence in their own water deeply shaken.

It seems to me that something of this magnitude, something of this impact, something that connects all of us, our water, should require the response of the Premier of Ontario.

This is good news for the people of Walkerton, it is good news for those families who have lost loved ones and it is good news for people right across Ontario. But it is sad that what motivated this announcement today was not a genuine desire to get to the bottom of this issue. It was because they felt the heat and not because they saw the light. They decided that they had no choice, as a result of tremendous pressure that was brought to bear not only by members sitting on this side of the House but by people right across the province of Ontario, but particularly by people inside the community of Walkerton.

There is sadness connected with their motivation, and I must say in all honesty that it would be nothing less than offensive if this inquiry were to be a trick. For this inquiry to be of real and genuine value in these tragic, sad circumstances, it must leave no stone unturned and it must shed light in each and every corner. It must be a full and comprehensive inquiry, and I want to put the government members on notice that we want a seat at the table when it comes to establishing the terms of reference for this inquiry.

I want the Premier's assurances that everybody connected with this matter, from the Premier on down, all of the cabinet ministers, all government staff, all officials, all documentation, all evidence, will be forthcoming upon the request of those people heading up this inquiry. Anything less than that will severely limit the work of the inquiry and its credibility. Let's assume there is some good faith here and that the government really does want to move forward on this matter in a positive way. Then we insist on having a seat at the table.

We insist that everybody, from the Premier on down, make him- and herself available to respond to questions that are going to be forthcoming from the inquiry.

I am somewhat concerned because in the news release put out just a short while ago, it says here, and this comes from the office of the Premier, "[T]he commission should examine what went wrong in Walkerton, in order to prevent a similar tragedy from occurring." I hope I'm not reading too much into this by thinking it's going to restrict itself specifically to the events that occurred at Walkerton, because that would not be enough. That would not do justice to the extent of the tragedy that has touched all Ontarians.

It is nothing less than essential that this inquiry be conducted in a comprehensive way, arm's length from the government, arm's length, in fairness, from all politicians. That's the only way that we can do justice to the people of Walkerton, to the seven people who have died, to their families and to all Ontarians who have developed a real, pressing concern about the safety of their own water.

Again, I want to thank the government for this announcement, but we look for much more by way of reassurance that this is a genuine effort to get to the bottom of this.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): First of all, a response to the Attorney General. I read the news release from the Premier's office carefully and I want to say to the Attorney General that this is a step forward, but this is a step not nearly forward enough, because your press release specifically says the commission should examine what went wrong in Walkerton. But we already know today that the issue of water quality, the issue of water safety, now extends to Freelton, to Shelburne. A young woman is sick in Sudbury.

There have been concerns in Thunder Bay, in Dryden, throughout Huron and Bruce county and, finally, there are problems in North York. If I may, I want to suggest to the Attorney General that this should not be an inquest into what went wrong in Walkerton, although that must be covered in this inquest; this should be a commission into the safety of Ontario's water supply. That should be the subject of this commission.

I want to note for the Attorney General that this is not the first time that your government has had to call a commission of inquiry. Earlier in the history of your government the then Attorney General, Charles Harnick, appointed Judge Estey to head up an inquiry. But in doing that he said that he would not be preparing the terms of reference himself, that the House leaders would sit down with the government House leader to ensure that the inquiry covered all of the issues that needed to be covered.

I want to quote from Hansard, because the Deputy Premier, Mr Eves, at that time said: "The government has no problem with a public inquiry into this matter and I would be happy to discuss the matter with the other two House leaders tomorrow morning." That is when he was Deputy Premier and House leader.

To ensure that this inquiry at least gets off on the right foot, I'm asking that when the Attorney General leaves this Legislature later on today and you deal with the members of the press, you will indicate that this will be a commission of inquiry into the quality of Ontario's water and the safety of Ontario's water, that the tragic events that happened in Walkerton will be covered in that, but so will the other issues that have arisen since the events in Walkerton.

And I would ask that you indicate as well that you are prepared, or the government House leader is prepared, to meet with the House leaders of the opposition parties to work out the terms of reference, because if this is strictly an inquiry into what went wrong in Walkerton, then it will be nothing more than a duplication of what the coroner's office is supposed to do. The coroner's office announced earlier today that they will look into the issues surrounding the deaths of nine people in the Walkerton area.

If you intend to narrow this inquiry into simply what went wrong in Walkerton, then it will not be in any greater detail than the coroner's inquiry, and that would simply be wrong. So I'm asking that when you leave this Legislature this day, you will satisfy us on those two points: that the House leaders will meet to determine the terms of reference, and that it will be an inquiry into the water safety and the water quality for all Ontario residents.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I want to say just a few words to the Minister of Education, because the Minister of Education today has made a statement.

I find it interesting that a government which breached the privacy laws which protect the privacy of the citizens of Ontario, a government which then got involved in a process to obstruct the privacy commissioner and a government which has tried to deny its responsibilities for the tragedy in Walkerton, now assumes that it is in the position where it is going to set codes of conduct for other people in the province. I would say that if there needs to be a code of conduct, it is a code of conduct for this government. Nowhere are teachers asking for the right to suspend students. Teachers aren't asking for that.

They know that's not their role. They don't want to be put in that role. But that's exactly the kind of inane thing you're going to do in this code of conduct, and it is wrong and you shouldn't be doing it.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to move a motion without notice regarding the business of the general government committee with respect to the tragic events at Walkerton.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: The official opposition will grant unanimous consent on this, but I would like to point out to you, sir, that had the government agreed with Mr McGuinty's amendment to its own motion, they'd be doing in effect the same thing, only three days earlier.

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

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): I move that the referral of the House of May 29, 2000, to the standing committee on general government to consider and report on the circumstances leading to the tragedy in Walkerton and voted against by members of the opposition be discharged.

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

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The official opposition was informed that the Premier would be in the House today. Indeed, his

schedule showed that he would be in the House. We have not been told otherwise, that he will not be in the House. Clearly, we want to have the opportunity to question the Premier on these events.

Hon Mr Sterling: Mr Speaker, I'm informed the Premier will not be here today.

The Speaker: The member for Windsor-St Clair on a different point of order.

PREMIER'S ATTENDANCE

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Mr Speaker, if I may, we were told that the Premier would be here. Please, this is a serious circumstance. We were informed that the Premier would be here. Indeed, the Premier's

schedule showed that he would be here. This is an extremely important debate, and the tradition of this House has been that we would be informed in the event of a minister's not being here.

I call on you, sir, given the fact that we were told the Premier would be here, given the significance of events today, that you summon the Premier to the House to answer questions, or, alternatively, recess for five minutes to allow the government to consider getting the Premier into this House to answer questions.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member will know that I do not have the power to send for anybody in this position. The members will know that the Speaker does not control who is coming and who is not here. I know there is a tradition of letting the opposition know out of courtesy.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Sometimes circumstances do change. There is nothing in the standing orders that the Speaker can do regarding that.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for London-Fanshawe, come to order.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would seek unanimous consent, consistent with the request of the official opposition, that we recess this House until such time as the Premier can be here to answer the questions. It's not acceptable that he would avoid the House on this day.

The Speaker: I'm going to listen very carefully. Is there unanimous consent? No, I'm afraid there is not.

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It occurs to me that we have been discussing this tragedy since the beginning of the week and we have not collectively shared in a moment's silence on behalf of the community, families, and those who have died. I seek unanimous consent that we do that presently.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

Interjections.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't think we heard clearly on this side of the House what the unanimous consent was for.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I didn't hear it. I say to the members opposite, I appreciate the fact you're upset-

The Speaker: If the Minister of Labour would take his seat.

Once we settle down, you can do the point of order.

Point of order, Minister of Labour.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I don't think we heard clearly on this side of the House what the unanimous consent was for.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): You did too. You're making it worse, Chris.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I didn't hear it. I say to the members opposite, I appreciate the fact that you're upset-

The Speaker: Minister of Labour, take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that what the leader of the official opposition was asking for was a moment of silence for the people of Walkerton. I hope I got it correctly.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Just a second. We're dealing with one. That's what he asked for. Is there unanimous consent? Agreed. If all members and our friends in the gallery could rise for a moment of silence.

The House observed a moment's silence.

The Speaker: I thank everyone. It is now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Attorney General. Minister, you have announced that we're going to have a commission of inquiry. I want to better understand from you whether or not this commission's work will have as its objective a comprehensive review of the safety of water throughout Ontario, including those facts leading up to the tragedy that occurred at Walkerton. Is that the kind of inquiry we're talking about?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The terms of reference for the inquiry will be broad. I will have an opportunity to discuss the terms of reference with whoever the commissioner may be over time.

One of the advantages of the Public Inquiries Act and that system of public inquiry in Ontario is that it is open to the commissioner to address systemic and broad issues. As the Leader of the Opposition no doubt knows, a public inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act is the highest form, if I may put it that way, of inquiry within the statutory structure of the province of Ontario.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, can you assure us that my House leader and representatives from the third party, as well as representatives from your government, will be at the table when it comes to drafting the terms of reference, at the table when it comes to the makeup of the commission and at the table when it comes to choosing a time frame in which a report must be made available? Can you provide us with that assurance?

Hon Mr Flaherty: As the Leader of the Opposition knows, he had the opportunity to have a legislative committee with members from his party participating. It was the Leader of the Opposition who demanded that the Public Inquiries Act be used. It is now going to be used. I will have to discuss the terms of reference with whomever the commissioner is going to be. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that if he has input which he would like to convey with respect to what the terms of reference, in his view or in his party's view, ought to be, I'd be happy to receive and consider those.

Mr McGuinty: I'm getting the sense here that, as nothing more than perhaps a passing courtesy, you're going to allow us to participate in establishing the terms of reference for this very important public inquiry. I want to put it on the table now that that is completely unacceptable. That is a non-starter. We think representatives from all three parties should be involved in establishing the terms of reference, deciding the makeup of the commission and deciding when they're going to report. You can't now appropriate all authority over this inquiry. I want to make it perfectly clear that is unacceptable to us. You cannot move from a cover-up committee to some kind of a cover-up inquiry.

I'll ask you again: Provide us with an assurance now that we will be able to participate in establishing the terms of reference and establishing the makeup of the commission and the time frame within which the commission must report.

Hon Mr Flaherty: I thank the member opposite for his question. I'm trying to say yes; I thought I had said yes already. If the Leader of the Opposition has input which he would like to convey to me in terms of the terms of reference, I would be pleased to receive that input, and I'm sure it will make an effort to deal with the issues that ought to be dealt with by the commissioner, whoever that may turn out to be.

I would commend to all members-perhaps it will take some time to do this-to have a look at the Public Inquiries Act to refresh their memories with respect to same, because it does offer substantive guidance and procedural guidance with respect to the powers that the commissioner has and the subject matter that the commissioner can deal with.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question.

Mr McGuinty: A question to the same minister: I'm sure you're familiar with the terms of reference that were established for the Estey inquiry, which was conducted under the terms of your government not that long ago. You will know that the terms of reference there were established by order in council. You give the commission their marching orders. That's how it works. You don't sit down with them and ask them what they would like you to do; you tell them what you want them to do.

We want to participate in establishing the terms of reference. You can't simply extend an invitation for me to contact you. I want a process whereby representatives from each of the parties can meet, ideally later this afternoon, and begin to work together to draft comprehensive and responsible terms of reference. That's what I want. That's the only way we will have a commission of inquiry that's going to have a tremendous amount of credibility attached to it. Will you give us that?

Hon Mr Flaherty: As I say, the procedure and the substantive provisions are in the Public Inquiries Act. That act has been used by previous governments several times with respect to public inquiries. It was used by the previous Liberal government in 1988: the Honourable Judge Colter and the Niagara commission. The same procedure was used by the Liberal government in 1989 in the Houlden Commission of Inquiry into the Relationship Between Certain Individuals and Corporations and Elected and Unelected Public Officials, also known as the Patti Starr inquiry, I believe.

It was used again in 1990, I believe by the Liberal government, with respect to their reports on disposition of material generated and collected by the Houlden inquiry.

As I say, governments in the past 15 years have used this method of inquiry, which is statutory and not discretionary. I again commend to members the usefulness of referring to the Public Inquiries Act.

Mr McGuinty: The minister can cite all of these wonderful historical examples, but the matter we're talking about here is without precedent, to my knowledge, in the history of this province. Seven people have died. There's an entire community which has been devastated. The people of Ontario have had confidence in their own drinking water shattered. This is an issue now of trust. We must now together attach as much credibility as possible to this commission of inquiry. That means, as a matter of necessity, all three parties must be involved in lending shape to the terms of reference. That's how important this is.

You can't compare this to things that have happened in the past. This is without precedent.

I ask you again, will you guarantee us that all three parties will be at the table working together to establish terms of reference?

Hon Mr Flaherty: As I have indicated twice now, and I'll state it for a third time to the Leader of the Opposition: I welcome his suggestions, the suggestions of his party members. In fact, I welcome the suggestions of all members of this Legislative Assembly who have views with respect to what the terms of reference ought to contain.

This is a very serious matter, as the Leader of the Opposition has indicated. I hope that we can repose our trust-I feel as Attorney General I certainly can-in a judge or a retired judge in this province to use the Public Inquiries Act as statutory framework to get to the bottom of this situation, which is what the Premier has indicated repeatedly he would like to accomplish through the use of a public inquiry in Ontario.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, this is all about trust. The people of Ontario are watching today. They want to know that what you are putting in place is something that is worthy of their trust. They can't trust their water. They can't trust the procedures that are in place. What they want to be able to do is to have some real confidence in a process now that's going to leave no stone unturned and will shed light in each and every corner. That's what they want to hear today, and they're not getting that from you, Minister. You're dancing around my question.

You're not providing us with a guarantee that all three parties will be involved in a process to establish terms of reference. It's a simple question. I want a direct answer. Yes or no, can all three of us be involved in setting up terms of reference for a commission that will be worthy of the public trust?

Hon Mr Flaherty: For the fourth time, I will repeat to the Leader of the Opposition that his participation, his input, the input of every member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario is welcomed with respect to the terms of reference. If he'd like to put them in writing, if he'd like to meet with me as Attorney General, whatever he wants, I'm prepared to accommodate the Leader of the Opposition with respect to his having full input in the terms of reference. I extend that also, of course, to the leader of the third party and the members of the third party. I don't think I can be more clear than that.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): In view of the fact that the Premier was supposed to be here and is not here, my question is for the Deputy Premier. As the Premier's representative here today, I want to hear directly from the Deputy Premier. When the Estey inquiry was appointed by your government on March 20, 1996, you told this Legislature that as the Deputy Premier and the House leader of the government, you were prepared to meet with other House leaders to determine the terms of reference of that inquiry.

Are you prepared to do the same thing with this inquiry, given the fact that seven people have already died, the coroner suspects that another two may have died as a result of polluted water, that this has been a tragedy and it is a tragedy that may stretch beyond Walkerton? Are you prepared to give the same commitment here today that you gave in 1996 with respect to the Estey inquiry?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): First of all, obviously everybody is well aware of the seriousness of this particular tragedy. I think the Attorney General has outlined quite clearly that he's prepared to accept the advice of the leader of the official opposition, the leader of the third party, that you will have very direct input into what the terms of reference will be. I guess you could do that by a House leaders' meeting if you want to, but you have an open invitation from the Attorney General of Ontario saying he'd be happy to receive your input into his broadest possible terms of a public inquiry. That's what the press release says.

Mr Hampton: The Premier's press release is this: On the one hand, I hear the Attorney General talking about broad terms of reference, but then I read the Premier's press release and he says we should determine what went wrong at Walkerton. But as you know, and certainly as other members of your government know, E coli has now been detected in the water supply in Freelton and in Shelburne. There is a young woman who is seriously ill in Sudbury. There are concerns about the water supply in North York.

This means that the inquiry in terms of its scope ought not to look just at the issues in Walkerton but ought to look at the broader issues of the safety and the security of our water supply. Are you prepared, as Deputy Premier, the person who is responsible for this government here today, to give a commitment that the terms of reference will, yes, include Walkerton, but will be broader than Walkerton to look at other areas where E coli has been found and other areas where there are concerns about the quality and the safety of the water supply?

Hon Mr Eves: To the leader of the third party, if he will permit me to read two sentences from the press release: "Harris has asked Attorney General Jim Flaherty to draft broad terms of reference for the commission. He said the commission should examine what went wrong in Walkerton, in order to prevent a similar tragedy from occurring." You have the Attorney General's open invitation to provide your very direct input and that of your colleagues, in fact of every member of the Legislature, as to what those terms of reference should be.

I would think the Attorney General might want to hear from the commissioner when he or she is chosen as to what those terms of reference may be as well. I think all of that is very appropriate and all of that input should be received and will be received by the Attorney General.

Mr Hampton: I think what you've just confirmed, Deputy Premier, is that you can interpret the Premier's press release in two ways: In one sentence he says he wants broad terms of reference; in the next sentence, he says he wants it confined to what went wrong in Walkerton. I am the first to say that Walkerton is a very tragic issue, but you must also know that E coli has been detected in the water supply in Freelton, in the water supply in Shelburne. There is a young woman who is sick in Sudbury today.

There is a problem in North York, and for all we know, there may be problems elsewhere in Ontario, given the fact that your government is not doing the same level and the same quality of water testing.

I'm simply asking for a commitment from you. Will you say clearly and unequivocally here today that the terms of reference of this commission will not just be with respect to Walkerton, as tragic as that event is, but will look at the broader issues of the safety, the quality of the water supply of people's drinking water in Ontario, especially in these other communities that have been identified? If we're seriously going to get to the bottom of this issue, I would think that you'd stand on your feet and give that commitment here and now. Will you do that, Deputy Premier?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, I don't think the leader of the third party would begin to suggest that all the other possible situations that he has referred to are on a parallel with Walkerton, number one-at least I would hope he's not suggesting that. Number two, with respect to the terms of reference of the public inquiry, I think it would behoove him to have his input, to have the input of the leader of the official opposition and other members of the Legislature, to see what the draft terms of reference of the public inquiry are before he starts to criticize it.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Hampton: Again to the Deputy Premier: We're simply seeking assurances over here that the terms of reference will be broad enough to deal with the identified water safety, water quality problems in the province. I want to relate to you again the Premier's response yesterday. I asked him about the issue of large factory farms, the issue of many tonnes of manure, the issue of not having adequate environmental plans or other plans to deal with that and the possible water contamination. The Premier said, "Well, these things have nothing to do with water quality."

I'm asking you here and now, will the terms of reference of this commission of inquiry be broad enough to look into the very issues that were identified by the medical officer of health in the Walkerton area, Dr McQuigge, when he wrote both to your government and to municipal officials and said there appears to be a relationship between the large factory farms, the tonnes of manure and the pollution of the water supply? Is the commission of inquiry going to be broad enough to look at that issue, Deputy Premier?

Hon Mr Eves: The terms of reference for the public inquiry have not been established yet. I don't know how I can comment on what they are when they haven't been established and when the Attorney General, I think in a very sincere and open way, has asked you for your input and he's quite prepared to receive that input. If the leader of the third party is not happy with what they end up being at the end of the day, then I would say to him that would be fair comment, but when they haven't even been drafted yet, to start criticizing what they are is a little premature, to say the least.

Why don't you have your input first, why doesn't the leader of the official opposition have his input, and the input of other members of the Legislature? Then it would be fair comment at the end of the day, if you're not satisfied with what they are, to talk about it.

Mr Hampton: The problem, Deputy Premier, is this: You are the government that cut $100 million out of the Ministry of the Environment budget. You are the government that laid off 900 scientists, inspectors and technicians. You are the government that came forward and said that most of the environmental regulation in the province is nothing but red tape. You are the government that tried to come in here two days ago and restrict the inquiry into nothing more than some of your backbenchers rubber-stamping what you've done already. That's the problem.

You had no problem in 1996 coming into this Legislature and saying, "We are prepared to meet and we are prepared to work out the broad terms of reference." I'm asking you specific questions: Are you prepared to include these important issues within the terms of reference? I think you, as Deputy Premier, if you're truly concerned about this issue and want to get very much to the bottom of it and the breadth of it, would be saying, "Yes, we're prepared to do that."

Deputy Premier, just another item, another important issue: Your government has a number of water tests that you've refused to make public, a number of tests of municipal facilities and other facilities. Are you prepared to include that all of this information must be made public and must be the subject of this commission of inquiry?

Hon Mr Eves: Of course we want to get to the bottom of the matter. The Premier said that consistently from the very beginning of this. Today the Attorney General of the province has announced the public inquiry. We are welcoming your input and that of other members of the Legislature into what the terms of reference will be. I'm quite prepared, and I think every member of this Legislature should be quite prepared, to leave this to a judge or a retired judge as the commissioner under the Public Inquiries Act, and he or she will definitely get to the bottom, to the heart of the issue.

If you have any qualms about a particular individual who you don't think is competent to serve as a commissioner, I guess you should let those be known to the Attorney General of Ontario, but I think he has been most sincere and frank and open about asking for your input here today.

DRINKING WATER SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Ministry of the Environment. You will be familiar with the program that operates through your ministry called the drinking water surveillance program. Before I get into that program and what it has done recently, I want to remind our viewers that you and the Premier have been telling us for a week now that no procedures have been changed since 1996 when it comes to testing water and making sure it's safe for all Ontarians.

But we now learn that in 1996 your water surveillance program, which is a monitoring program developed to provide reliable and current information on municipal drinking water, stopped testing for E coli. It was a form of E coli that killed seven people in Walkerton.

You told us that nothing had changed. Tell us now, Minister, why it is that you told us that nothing had changed when in fact something did change. Why have we stopped testing for E coli, a killer bug here in Ontario, under the terms of your government?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): On the issue of the drinking water surveillance program and the testing of E coli, it's important to note that not all municipalities and all water treatment facilities were involved in that program. Testing for E coli and all other water testing has been done with the municipalities, with the public utilities commissions in this province. So the testing continues for E coli. There are procedures in place. Information must be shared between all parties involved: the labs, the Ministry of the Environment, the local medical officer of health as well as the municipality.

Mr McGuinty: There is a program here in Ontario that operates under the auspices of your ministry. It's the water surveillance program. The purpose of that program is to monitor contaminants and to measure trends when it comes to water in Ontario. That's your ministry; that's your job. Tell us again in a way that all Ontario can understand this, why is it that this water surveillance program no longer tests for E coli, a disease that just killed seven people in Walkerton.

Hon Mr Newman: The program tests over 200 parameters of concern in this province with water testing, and the testing of E coli continues. We have the toughest testing system of its kind in North America. The water quality in Ontario: 98.98% of all the water tested meets the objectives of the Ontario Drinking Water Objectives that were put in place in 1994.

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Chair of Management Board, and I would like to change the questioning to the kinds of questions we were hearing a couple of weeks ago.

I noticed in today's Star that the sales process for our property at McCowan Road and Highway 407 has been called into question. I'd been listening to the Liberal Party's questions on this issue some time ago, but they're always so muddled with misinformation and of course slanted Liberal facts.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I'm happy to have a chance to answer on this important matter. As I've told this House before, all past transactions are being reviewed by independent auditors, and the transactions mentioned in today's paper are no exception; they are following the same process. Some time ago I asked the Ontario Realty Corp to implement a sales process that is open-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Member, take your seat. We can't continue. I'm going to be watching closely. People are going to be warned from now on.

Hon Mr Hodgson: As I was saying, some time ago I asked the Ontario Realty Corp to implement a sales process that is open, accountable and transparent. That is why this audit process was initiated, to ensure that all past sales were conducted in the best interests of the taxpayers. Independent auditors have been retained and are conducting this review in a thorough and comprehensive manner. Any evidence of concern found by the auditors to date has been forwarded directly to the OPP for further review and investigation.

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

Mr Galt: You mentioned that the independent auditors and the police are reviewing these past sales, yet I was watching the Michael Coren show a few weeks ago and I was shocked, absolutely shocked, to hear the member for Eglinton-Lawrence admit-admit-that the Liberal Party was not forwarding any material they find to the auditors or to the OPP. Of course, this is consistent with the flip-flop positions of the Liberals.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Windsor West, this is the last warning. You can't continue shouting across there; last warning.

Mr Galt: I'm sure what he was referring to, about the public being the real investigators-he was talking about the court of public opinion, and that of course is just a political interest and not really of concern for the taxpayers of this province. With this revelation, do you know if all the relevant material is indeed being forwarded to the proper authorities?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I too have heard these comments from the Liberal member, and I too was very concerned.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Hodgson: If I can continue and not be interrupted-

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member take his seat.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Hodgson: If I could get a word in edgewise, if the member for Windsor West would allow me to speak here for one second to answer to this important question, I can tell the House that I have been asking Liberal members across the floor to forward any information they find either to myself or to the proper authorities. To date, I have not received any evidence from the Liberals. I would expect that they would have forwarded any evidence they have to the proper authorities. I can guarantee the member from Northumberland that this side of the House is certainly following the proper process.

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'd like to get back to Watergate, and I would like to ask a question of the Minister of the Environment. For public relations purposes, Minister, and so you can appear as though you're doing something after the horse is out of the barn and after the tragedy of Walkerton, you'll be sending out staff from the Ministry of the Environment to scrutinize, I suppose, water plants across the province of Ontario.

But you will know from your issue reports in the Ministry of the Environment that your government disbanded those teams which were specifically expert and dedicated to the inspection of water treatment plants. It appears that you're going to have to bring anybody and everybody out of ministry offices to be able to conduct this work, because you've had over 700 staff fired out the door in the Ministry of the Environment and over 40% of your budget cut.

Minister, could you tell us where on earth you're going to get the staff to be able to do this, the staff with the specific expertise and capability of inspecting all these plants? Could you tell us what you're going to do with those people's regular jobs? Are you going to abandon their other jobs so they can go out and inspect plants? Never mind Chris Stockwell's answer; I'm interested in your answer.

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): I'm glad you're interested in my answer, because that's what the people of Ontario want to hear.

My ministry staff take this issue very seriously. That's why, in the new regulation that I've talked about and announced on Monday, my commitment to ensure that each and every certificate of approval for water facilities in this province is indeed reviewed.

We're going to go beyond that. We're going to ensure that each and every certificate of approval is reviewed at least once every three years. This is a real step forward. The regulation also will require private labs and municipalities to exchange that information with the Ministry of the Environment and the local medical officer of health.

Mr Bradley: They're not going to have the staff to do it because you've disbanded those expert teams. They were great teams. They were teams of four that went out, dedicated staff specifically for inspecting water treatment plants in Ontario. You got rid of them. You were so busy wanting to cut the Ministry of the Environment so you had money to give away to the richest people in this province that you've lost those people. Forty-two per cent of the staff dedicated to drinking water are out the door at this time.

Minister, why don't you ask the Premier of this province to give up his $1.7 million that he just got for an increase for his personal staff? Why don't you ask the Premier to give up his $6 million in new political advertising in this province? Why don't you ask the Treasurer of this province to forgo that public relations trick of sending a $200 cheque to everybody in the province, and why don't you ask the Treasurer and the Premier to invest that money is safe drinking in Ontario?

Hon Mr Newman: The member opposite is wrong. I can tell him that there are no changes in the number of environmental inspectors in this province.

I want to also let the member know that this government and this party have made a commitment, through our Blueprint document, to the environment. I can tell you that there are many measures with respect to environmental legislation, with respect to increasing the maximum fines for not only first-time polluters but second-time polluters. Repeat polluters are going to see fines doubled in this province; that was a campaign commitment. There was also a campaign commitment to set up a 1-800 hotline with respect to pollution. But importantly, there was also a commitment to create an environmental SWAT team.

I want to tell you that I'm going to ensure, as the Minister of the Environment, that this party and this government keep all of our commitments from the Blueprint document with respect to the environment.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): My question is for the Minister of Education. I've heard from many parents and students in my riding of Scarborough Centre that they're very concerned for their safety at school. In fact, recent media reports from Ontario and around North America have highlighted certain incidents of violence at school. I know this is very disturbing not only for constituents in Scarborough Centre but for many constituents in Ontario. Minister, I wonder if you could tell this House how the new Safe Schools Act will respond to the concerns of my constituents.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): One of the things I think all members in this House have heard from constituents is that concern about violence in schools is growing. The incidence of things like bullying and harassment of some students by other students, for example, has been growing and parents, students and teachers are quite concerned about it. We told the people of Ontario before last year's election that we would implement a code of conduct if we were returned as the government. We have moved forward with that commitment. I released the code of conduct a month ago.

Today I introduced the legislation which gives it legal authority. It clearly sets out rules, standards of behaviour, consequences for breaking those standards-suspension and expulsion. There are mandatory penalties for bringing drugs to school, for example, or weapons. We will also ensure that school boards have the appropriate programs in place, like strict discipline programming, for example, to help students who have been expelled or suspended to get the help they need to keep our classrooms safer.

Ms Mushinski: I thank the minister for her answer. I'm particularly proud that our government is taking steps to ensure a safer school environment for our students and teachers. We know they have a right to feel safe and be safe in their school community. Along with standards for physical safety, my constituents feel it is very important that students are also encouraged to be civil and to have respect for their school environment. I'm wondering if you can tell this House if the Safe Schools Act addresses these aspects of the schools as well.

Hon Mrs Ecker: There are several other initiatives that are included in our Safe Schools Act. First of all, parents will have the authority to decide if they want to have a dress code or a uniform. It's something parents are very supportive of. There will be the mandatory singing of O Canada. Parents can have a pledge of citizenship or the bill of rights, for example, as part of the opening ceremonies, if they wish. We're also requiring students in high school to do a minimum of 40 hours of community work as another way to promote respect and good citizenship and responsibility in our schools. It not only benefits the community; it will certainly benefit those students.

The other thing I'm very encouraged to say is that many members here may have seen the recent media reports about a public opinion research company that showed 91% of Ontario residents do indeed support a code of conduct for their schools, because they know our teachers cannot teach and we know our students cannot learn as well as we want them to if we have these issues in the school.

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): To the Minister of the Environment: I have a three-page chart showing some of the hundreds of staff cuts at the Ministry of the Environment between 1995 and 1998. These numbers are based entirely on information provided by your ministry. Here are just four examples: lab services, 83 staff let go; science and technology branch, 95 gone; environmental monitoring and reporting, 37 gone; investigations and enforcement branch, 27 gone. You may recall that your Premier told this House that zero compliance staff were laid off.

Do you think it's any wonder that we don't trust your government to set broad terms of reference that can get to the bottom of what has happened here when you and your own Premier stand up in this House and-how can I put it delicately?-misinform this House about the number of staff who have been cut from your-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member can't use that word. I'd ask her to withdraw that word.

Ms Churley: I withdraw that. Minister, I'll give you a chance now to retract what you said earlier. Stand up and come clean with the people of this province and tell them that those staff have been cut, you do not have the same procedures in place and there aren't as many staff there doing the job.

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): If you look at the numbers from the years the member is talking about, she may want to also enlighten all members of the House to the fact that back in 1995-96 the Ministry of the Environment was part of the Ministry of Environment and Energy. There were some 140 staff members who were part of the Ministry of Environment and Energy who are now in the Ministry of Energy, Science and Technology. There are 140 staff right there who have been transferred from the Ministry of Environment and Energy to the Ministry of Energy, Science and Technology.

She may also want to let everyone know that there have been staff members who are now part of Management Board Secretariat in the shared services bureau doing an administrative function.

I agree there are fewer staff members in total in the Ministry of the Environment, but I can tell you that there has been no change in the number of environmental inspectors in this province.

Ms Churley: That is not correct. It's here in black and white. We know that you fired up to 900 staff and cut your budget by $100 million. Why don't you just admit it?

Yesterday we had the Taking Stock report from the Commission for Environmental Cooperation giving Ontario an international reputation as a jurisdiction that does not care about the environment. Were you shocked to learn that for 1997 Ontario was the third worst, after Texas, polluter in North America? No. You did what you're doing now. In that case, you were blaming the methodology instead of the facts there. I have a document from your own ministry that says, "There is no obvious error in the analysis and ranking of state and province total release pollutants to all media and transfers to waste."

When are you going to stop the spin? People have died in Walkerton, and you and your Premier are still standing up and giving a spin. We need you to admit today that your cuts in staff and resources are hurting environmental protection in this province and you're going to put the money and the staff back. Will you tell us you're going to do that today?

Hon Mr Newman: I have a document which is the historical approved budget for the Ministry of the Environment. There's a little asterisk beside the years 1995-96 and 1996-97. It says that the 1995-96 to 1997-98 values include the Ontario Energy Corp business that was transferred to the Ministry of Energy, Science and Technology, about $14 million.

The member opposite also doesn't recognize the fact that when her party was the government they actually cut $200 million in water and sewer grants to municipalities in this province.

She also raised the issue of the Taking Stock report. Yes, indeed the methodology is flawed, because no matter who is the government in this province, Ontario will always be near the top based on the methodology that's used.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I have a question for the Minister of Education. I want to ask you about the blame and distract act, Bill 74, that you're now trying to hide from the public by shotgunning it out of debate today and putting it into almost no hearings. In your own riding of Durham, in that board, you've allowed $60 million to be cut once inflation and enrolment is taken into account.

At St Mary school in Pickering, the hallways are dirty. There are only two custodians for 2,000 students. In the phys ed and health education class, 55 kids share 12 text books. They had to get eight desks from the elementary school to accommodate their class this year.

Minister, will you tell the truth on this bill? Tell the students in Durham, and indeed around the province, that it's about taking money out of education, it's about reducing your commitment. Will you say to Bob Richmond, who is the teacher of this class-and he tells you that you're wrong, that you can't legislate spirit and passion and commitment for kids. Minister, will you admit that you're wrong with your bill, that you're hiding and distracting from the money you're cutting from education, and will you tell us today that you'll withdraw it?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): I really wish the honourable member would check his facts. First of all, Bill 74 has nothing to do with the budget of school boards. As a matter of fact, because Bill 74 decreases class size, there will be more teachers and there is going to be more money for school boards: $253 million more to enforce and put in place smaller class sizes. Why? Because teachers and parents told us that smaller classes are important to quality education.

Second, I don't know how he turns a $9-million increase in the Durham public board funding into some sort of cut. Only a Liberal could do that kind of Liberal math.

The other thing is, contrary to what the honourable member states, the funding formula is built on enrolment so that it reflects enrolment in boards. It was designed to do that because that's what we were told needed to be done.

Mr Kennedy: The minister unfortunately did not meet my simple request to tell the truth; $60 million was lost because of enrolment and inflation since 1995 in her own area. So what do you say, Minister, to Bob Richmond? You're saying you're going to give more workload to teachers who are already working heavily. You're going to take their attention away from kids.

Minister, Bob Richmond is a former member of the Edmonton Eskimos who does extracurricular at St Mary school in Pickering. He starts his day at 6:30 in the morning to teach the weight-lifting class. He then teaches two classes from 8:15 to 11:45. He has 35 minutes for lunch; only gets it twice a week because he also has lunch and supervision duty. From 12:20 to 2:20 he teaches one or two more classes, and then he teaches the football team and leaves at 6:30.

Minister, you're misleading the public when you say this is about-

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Thank you very much. I got it. I appreciate it, Minister of Labour. I heard it too. I don't need the yelling from the government benches. You have to withdraw that.

Mr Kennedy: It was unintentional. Minister, will you please agree to this simple request: Will you either withdraw the bill that will take learning time away from kids or will you come with me and spend the day at St Mary school in Pickering, in Durham, in your riding where this-

The Speaker: Order. The member's time is up. Minister of Education.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I would like to hazard a guess that I have been in more schools in Pickering-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. Members will come to order. Sorry for the interruption. Minister of Education.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I would hazard a guess that I've probably been in more schools in Pickering than the honourable member has. Second, he may think it is OK for a region like Durham, or any other region, to have extracurricular, co-instructional activities withdrawn from students for two years. He may think that is OK, but this government and parents do not think it is OK.

He says we should withdraw Bill 74. Does this mean that the Liberals believe that if a school board is taking special education money and spending it on something else, if a school board is taking textbook money and spending it on something else, we shouldn't do anything? Bill 74 allows us the authority to take steps on that.

The honourable member may not think remediation should be considered part of instructional time for teachers-

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

WOMEN'S SHELTERS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. In the past I know you've taken time to meet with members of Bethesda House, a women's shelter in my riding of Durham. The hostel provides accommodation for up to 15 women and children in a safe, secure location in Bowmanville. Bethesda House offers a 24-hour crisis telephone line, counselling, support for children, community education and a volunteer training program. Bethesda House faces many financial challenges.

I have here with me a list of hundreds of individuals from communities and corporate donors that have helped support this hostel over the years. Clearly Bethesda House has acquired funding in a number of creative ways. I know that Karen Mason, the executive director of Bethesda House and the volunteer board have written in the hope that you and your ministry will be able to assist this hostel. Minister, what can you tell the members of Bethesda House today?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I want to say at the outset that this government will not tolerate violence against women and their children. Helping to support abused women and their children is a top concern of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Because of the hard work of my colleague the member for Durham, who I know cares passionately about this issue-he's had the representatives from Bethesda House in to see me in my office and I've had the opportunity to recognize the good service that the folks at Bethesda House provide women and children in need in his community.

Our ministry is providing one-time funding of $26,000 to help ease the immediate cash flow needs of Bethesda House. By providing this one-time funding the agency has the ability to ensure that the essential health and safety issues, as well as the payroll concerns, can be addressed. I'm also pleased to learn, through the member for Durham, that the region has agreed to provide stable block funding to Bethesda House to help the hostel better manage its day-to-day operations.

I look forward to continuing to work with the hard-working member for Durham on this important priority for his community.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I want to personally thank you for the time you've given this initiative. Also the whole community really has come together, and as you've said, Durham and yourselves have come together to provide a more predictable funding model for them and I thank you for that. I thank the Durham council.

I am sure that my constituents appreciate that there's more to be done. Furthermore, I'm certain they will appreciate that the minister will be willing to help address the financial needs of this hostel. We all recognize that Bethesda House plays an important role in Durham. The good news is that the Durham Bethesda House is not alone in its efforts to protect women and children. The region is also well served by another women's shelter. Together, they both provide a critical service to help ensure the safety of women and children in Durham.

Minister, would you please explain what we are continuing to do to help and support women and children in shelters?

Hon Mr Baird: I want to again stress that this government is committed to addressing and responding to the challenges of domestic violence against women and children in our province.

Funding for women's shelters is now more stable. We've replaced per diem funding with stable block funding so that shelters can know their revenue at the beginning of the year and be able to be more responsive to the needs of these vulnerable victims.

I would like to point out two initiatives contained in the budget as further evidence of our commitment to combating domestic violence. We'll be expanding the domestic violence courts through the Ministry of the Attorney General. We also announced $10 million to establish two new programs to support women and children who have experienced domestic violence. These two programs are now under development and we will be providing further details in the near future.

These new funds, in addition to the $110 million this government already spends each year to address and prevent violence against women services, demonstrates the important priority we accord this. Just in Durham region, with respect to hostels, the region's now on board and the province, of course, provides 80% to support emergency hostels, which is another evidence of our strong commitment to this important area.

LOW WATER LEVELS

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. For over two months now, through questions, statements and correspondence, I've advised you of the economic crisis that's been created by low water levels in Essex country to private property owners, being individuals and marina operators. You know too, I think, that these low water levels are throughout the Great Lakes basin.

Early this month the federal government, along with the Ontario Marina Operators Association, each offered $15 million to go towards dredging of private marinas and those areas that are affected by low water levels.

I wrote you a letter on May 8, encouraging you to partner with the Ontario Marina Operators Association and the federal government, and for the provincial government's to put its $15 million on the table to help these economically strapped businesses and property owners. I said in that letter, "I simply ask that the province join the partnership effort to help those in need of assistance."

I haven't heard from you yet, Minister. Will you tell me today that you will partner with the federal government and private marina operators and put a third of that $45 million on the table?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I thank the member opposite for the question and the opportunity to address this again. As I've told the member opposite and in fact every member of this chamber in the past, we take low water levels very seriously in this government. That's why we announced Ontario Water Response 2000, so that we could address these issues where they're important throughout the province.

We also instructed our ministry, and I know the member opposite is aware of this, to expedite applications for dredging, particularly in those areas that are experiencing very low lake water levels. As the member opposite will know, we've had some relief over the course of the last few weeks in terms of water levels in some of our lakes and some of the Great Lakes. However, we do have low water levels in some areas of the province.

I am pleased to inform the member opposite that I had a very brief conversation with Minister Dhaliwal a few weeks ago, who is the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He, I expect, has admitted that there is a federal responsibility for navigation in waterways in Ontario. I was pleased he has finally recognized that. I asked him to send me, please, his intentions, his plan, for dredging.

Mr Crozier: I assume by your answer that you asked him to send you something and he hasn't sent it. But you know, Minister, on that phone you have, whether it's a cellphone in your car or one on your desk or one you carry in your pocket, there's a dial on it. If you hadn't heard from him and if you were really concerned about these property owners, you would have called him again, or you might have brought it up in the House and said, "I haven't heard from him." But you haven't answered my letter. You haven't gotten back to him to say, "Where is your answer?" You haven't done anything.

So will you call him today and say, "Minister Dhaliwal, I'll put the $15 million on the table if you'll send me that information tomorrow"?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Unfortunately the time constraints didn't allow for a fulsome answer ton the first question. Perhaps in the supplemental we'll get to the matter.

The minister was kind enough to give me a phone call and ask what Ontario thought about this proposal. He wasn't able to share details of it with me then, or in fact now. I suspect that perhaps the plan is not very full.

I can tell the member opposite that within an hour or so of calling me and our asking for his plan and for some input, he made the announcement that there'd be a federal plan-this, without any planning, this without any consultation, and in my view in an irresponsible fashion.

I can tell the member opposite that we continue to take low water levels very seriously in the province of Ontario, that we have got a plan to address those issues and the environmental issues that come from dredging, which is a concern for people right across this province. We are taking it very seriously.

ST CLAIR PARKWAY COMMISSION

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of Tourism. First of all, I would like to thank the minister for spending some time in my riding of Lambton-Kent-Middlesex with the good people of that riding last week. As you are aware, Minister, the St Clair Parkway Commission, which is an agency of your ministry, provides outdoor leisure and-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock, please. It has gone to a new member, and I say to the government member that his own member is trying to ask a question. I would appreciate the indulgence.

Sorry, to the member, for the interruption.

Mr Beaubien: I didn't think my question was going to be that controversial.

As you're aware, Minister, the St Clair Parkway Commission, which is an agency of your ministry, provides outdoor leisure and recreational opportunities for visitors to the Bluewater region. As I have expressed to you in the past, there have been some challenges in operating the commission as an important gateway to the region of the Bluewater land. Minister, what are you doing to ensure that the St Clair Parkway Commission continues to draw tourists to the Bluewater land region?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Tourism): I'd like to thank the member for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex for the question.

I'd also like to acknowledge the presence in the House today of a former member for Middlesex, Bob Eaton.

As many members of the House are aware, there is a large delegation from Sarnia-Lambton here to talk to the government and to all members of the House. I'm pleased to report, as my colleague has asked the question, that recently we've acknowledged that tourism in Sarnia-Lambton is their third-largest industry and growing at a faster rate than any of the other economic activities.

That's why our government has invested recently in an additional $50,000 to expand and enhance and develop the historical site known as Uncle Tom's Cabin-it is a rich part of Ontario's proud history-and a further $35,000 for developing a campground and RV park facilities at the St Clair Parkway Commission properties.

Interjection: It's never enough.

Mr Beaubien: I hear on the other side that it's not enough, and you're right, it's never enough, but we'll do our best to get our fair share.

Minister, as you're aware this afternoon, some members from the Sarnia Lambton Chamber of Commerce will be meeting with you to discuss some of the issues in the area. I hope you will maintain an open mind with regard to suggestions that the Sarnia Lambton Chamber of Commerce might submit or place in front of you. Could you give me your comments on this particular issue?

Hon Mr Jackson: I'd like to say that thanks to the encouragement from the local member, my colleague, I have had occasion to meet with several delegations from the Sarnia-Lambton area. I hasten to add that the historical impasse that has been created with the parkway commission property and adjacent Chatham-Kent-we're very close to having that matter resolved, I'm pleased to report to the House, and will be reporting to that very soon.

Also, our ministry is working with the Ministry of Transportation, the Bluewater Bridge Authority and the Sarnia/Lambton Visitor and Convention Bureau on a gateway proposal for expansion of the new bridge site at Point Edward. My ministry and our staff are working co-operatively with all the partners. I'd just like to state publicly, though, for the record, that I encourage all these organizations, whether it's the chamber of commerce, the visitor and convention bureau or the economic development offices, both at the region and at the city, that they work together to promote tourism.

This is one of the fastest-growing tourism regions in Ontario today, and I know that citizens of Sarnia-Lambton are looking forward to the new jobs and the wealth that will be created as a result of that.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions is over. The Minister of the Environment on a point of order.

CORRECTION OF RECORD

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): Earlier today, in answer to a question, I referred to the number of inspectors. I should have said that there was no change in the number of investigators. I just wanted to correct my record.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I would like to ask all members to join me in welcoming the fifth group of legislative pages to serve in the first session of the 37th Parliament.

With us today we have Leta Attard, from Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey; Nicholas Bewick, from Perth-Middlesex; Michael Cabral, from Northumberland; Gina Cowing, from Oxford; Stephanie Craig, from Waterloo-Wellington; Maria Dombrowsky, from Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington; David Fascinato, from Guelph-Wellington; Bryan Holt, from Etobicoke-Lakeshore; Riley Jakob, from Essex; Christopher Kent, from Nickel Belt; Danielle Koehn, from Markham; Avery Low, from Etobicoke Centre; Sebastian MacIntosh, from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford; April Martin, from Algoma-Manitoulin; Melissa Martin, from Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale; Mark McKie, from Beaches-East York; Alex Paton, from Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant; Bryce Schubert, from Davenport; Alexandra Stephenson, from Peterborough; and Marc Thorup, from London West.

Would all the members please join me in welcoming our new set of pages.

PETITIONS

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my name to this petition as well.

PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I have great privilege in submitting a petition on behalf of 750 students at DeVry Institute in Scarborough and Mississauga that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has announced its intention to allow private universities to offer degrees in the province;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to implement this policy over the next few months in order to increase the opportunities for students to obtain a degree in this province."

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

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

"Whereas we, the teachers of Ontario, believe only one and a half days of public hearings is both a sham and a shame;

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

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

I affix my signature to it because I'm in complete support of this petition.

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

LORD'S PRAYER

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Mr Speaker, it's good to see you in the chair again.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer, also called Our Father, has been used to open the proceedings of municipal chambers and the Ontario Legislative Assembly since the beginning of Upper Canada in the 18th century;

"Whereas such use of the Lord's Prayer is part of Ontario's long-standing heritage and a tradition that continues to play a significant role in contemporary Ontario life;

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer is a most meaningful expression of the religious convictions of many Ontario citizens;

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

"That the Parliament of Ontario maintain the use of the Lord's Prayer in its proceedings, in accordance with its long-standing established custom, and do all in its power to maintain use of this prayer in municipal chambers across Ontario."

I'm pleased to sign and support this petition.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree wholeheartedly with this petition, which is signed by a number of teachers, students and parents from west Elgin, and I have affixed my signature hereto.

KARLA HOMOLKA

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to present a petition to the Legislature of Ontario. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

"That the government of Ontario will:

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

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

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

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

I support the petition and I affix my signature to it.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I have a petition signed by in excess of 200 people.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Canada's health care system is one of our greatest achievements as a country;

"Whereas health care in Ontario has deteriorated, with medical services being reduced and hospital budgets cut to the bone, resulting in lengthy delays in treatment, with sometimes fatal results;

"Whereas major changes to health care legislation by the Harris government have been made with no prior public consultation;

"Whereas residents of Prince Edward-Hastings are demanding that their voices be heard and their concerns addressed to ensure that future health care legislation meets their needs;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to call on the Harris government to protect our valued health care system and to hold public hearings on Bills 23 and 173."

Being in agreement, I'm pleased to add my signature to this.

KARLA HOMOLKA

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I have a petition which reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

"That the government of Ontario will:

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

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

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

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

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, with over 600 names on it:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I assign my name to this with all my heart.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have again further petitions from CAW local 222, organized by Cecil Mackasey and Rick Roberts. 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 (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 these carcinogens;

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

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

"Therefore, 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."

As I am in agreement with this, I add my name to it.

KARLA HOMOLKA

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I am very pleased to present a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

"That the government of Ontario will:

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

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

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

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

I support the petition and I affix my signature thereto.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): I am pleased to present a petition handed to me last night at a parent-teacher meeting at Vankleek Hill C.I.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have added my signature.

LORD'S PRAYER

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I have a petition signed by 14 people.

"Whereas the prayer Our Father, also called the Lord's Prayer, has always been used to open the proceedings of municipal chambers and the Ontario Legislative Assembly since the beginning of Upper Canada under Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe in the 18th century; and

"Whereas such use of the Lord's Prayer is part of Ontario's long-standing heritage and a tradition that continues to play a significant role in contemporary Ontario life;

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

"That the Parliament of Ontario maintain the use of the Lord's Prayer in its proceedings, in accordance with its long-standing established custom."

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The time for petitions is ended.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): I wasn't here when the pages were introduced and I wanted to be sure that Nicholas Bewick was introduced. Was he introduced? Can I be assured of that? Nicholas Bewick.

The reason I wanted to be sure he was mentioned with the rest of the pages was that he comes from the riding of Perth-Middlesex. I know that I'm not supposed to mention, either because of Nicholas or our rules, that his mother is in the west gallery. We welcome Terry Bewick from beautiful downtown Listowel.

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [Children]): May I make a point of order, Mr Speaker?

The Deputy Speaker: I can't, because you're Mr Sterling right now.

Hon Mrs Marland: I'll be in my seat in one second.

The Deputy Speaker: The Chair recognizes the late minister.

Hon Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Just because you did that, I think it's important to recognize that a member of the official opposition, Leona Dombrowsky, also has her daughter in this session as a page. I'm not sure whether she was introduced either, so I'm just confirming that she was, the way that you were for your constituents.

The Deputy Speaker: Our congratulations.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Frank Klees (Minister without Portfolio): I move that, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 74,

An Act to amend the Education Act to increase education quality, to improve the accountability of school boards to students, parents and taxpayers and to enhance students' school experience, when Bill 74 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time, the bill shall be ordered to the standing committee on justice and social policy; and

That no deferral of the second reading vote pursuant to standing order 28(

h) shall be permitted; and

That the standing committee on justice and social policy shall be authorized to meet the morning of Wednesday, June 7, 2000, in Barrie, for public hearings and on Friday, June 9, 2000, in Ottawa for public hearings and on Monday, June 12, 2000, in Toronto at its regularly scheduled time for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and that the committee be authorized to meet beyond its normal hour of adjournment on that day until completion of clause-by-clause consideration; and

That, at 4:30 pm on the final day designated by the committee for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and not later than June 12, 2000, those amendments which have not been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every ques