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

May 22, 2003

37th Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2003-May-22 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 22 May 2003 Jeudi 22 mai 2003

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

PEOPLE'S ACCESS

TO THE FACTS ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR L'ACCÈS

DU PUBLIC AUX FAITS

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES

AMENDMENT ACT

(WATER SOURCE PROTECTION), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RESSOURCES EN EAU

DE L'ONTARIO

(PROTECTION DES SOURCES

D'ALIMENTATION EN EAU)

PEOPLE'S ACCESS

TO THE FACTS ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR L'ACCÈS

DU PUBLIC AUX FAITS

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES

AMENDMENT ACT

(WATER SOURCE PROTECTION), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RESSOURCES EN EAU

DE L'ONTARIO

(PROTECTION DES SOURCES D'ALIMENTATION EN EAU)

PEOPLE'S ACCESS

TO THE FACTS ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR L'ACCÈS

DU PUBLIC AUX FAITS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BSE

STAFF APPRECIATION

DISTILLERY DISTRICT

CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME

HOSPITAL SERVICES

SUDBURY REGIONAL HOSPITAL

STRATFORD FESTIVAL

DAIMLERCHRYSLER

DON YOUNG

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

THE RIGHT CHOICES ACT

(BUDGET MEASURES), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003

SUR LES BONS CHOIX

(MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES)

STUDENT HEALTH AND SAFETY

PROGRAMS ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LES PROGRAMMES

DE SANTÉ ET DE SÉCURITÉ

POUR ÉTUDIANTS

ONTARIO HOME PROPERTY

TAX RELIEF FOR SENIORS ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR L'ALLÉGEMENT

DE L'IMPÔT FONCIER RÉSIDENTIEL

POUR LES PERSONNES ÂGÉES

DE L'ONTARIO

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

AMENDMENT ACT (WORKPLACE

CARCINOMA COMMITTEE), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003

MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ

ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

(COMITÉ DU CARCINOME

D'ORIGINE PROFESSIONNELLE)

INQUIRY INTO

POLICE INVESTIGATIONS

OF SEXUAL ABUSE AGAINST MINORS

IN THE CORNWALL AREA ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 PRÉVOYANT UNE ENQUÊTE

SUR LES ENQUÊTES POLICIÈRES

RELATIVES AUX PLAINTES DE MAUVAIS

TRAITEMENTS D'ORDRE SEXUEL

INFLIGÉS À DES MINEURS

DANS LA RÉGION DE CORNWALL

TRUTH ABOUT IPPERWASH ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 CONCERNANT

LA VÉRITÉ SUR IPPERWASH

RETAIL SALES TAX RELIEF

FOR AMATEUR

YOUTH SPORTS ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 VISANT À ALLÉGER

LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

EN MATIÈRE DE SPORT AMATEUR

POUR LA JEUNESSE

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

(LIMITING COMPULSORY ACQUISITIONS), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES SOCIÉTÉS PAR ACTIONS

(RESTRICTION DES ACQUISITIONS FORCÉES)

KITCHENER-WATERLOO

FOUNDATION ACT, 2003

SENIORS' PROTECTION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES PERSONNES ÂGÉES

THUNDER BAY COMMUNITY

FOUNDATION ACT, 2003

MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

LE MINISTÈRE DES SERVICES CORRECTIONNELS

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TAX LEGISLATION

NOTICE OF REASONED AMENDMENT

DEFERRED VOTES

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

VISITOR

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

WATER QUALITY

WEST NILE VIRUS

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

DRINKING AND DRIVING

WOMEN'S SHELTERS

INVESTOR PROTECTION

SITE OF FIRST PARLIAMENT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

2003 ONTARIO BUDGET

Thursday 22 May 2003 Jeudi 22 mai 2003

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

PEOPLE'S ACCESS

TO THE FACTS ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR L'ACCÈS

DU PUBLIC AUX FAITS

Mr Wood moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 29,

An Act to amend the Public Inquiries Act / Projet de loi 29, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les enquêtes publiques.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member has up to 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Bob Wood (London West): The

short title of this bill is the People's Access to the Facts Act. It amends the Public Inquiries Act to allow any

member of the Legislative Assembly to propose a resolution to set up an inquiry into any matter that the act allows. The assembly is required to vote on the resolution within 60 sessional days

after it's proposed. Two thirds of the MPPs must support the introduction of an inquiry resolution. This in effect gives the Legislature itself the same power to call inquiries as the cabinet now

has.

Members will be well aware, I think, of my interest in democratizing the workings of the Legislature. I believe more input from MPPs means there will be more

input from all 12 million Ontarians. I think that more ideas being put forward, good debate on those ideas and good analysis will lead to better results for all Ontarians. I think that, as we

consider how a democratic Legislature functions, we'll come to the conclusion that MPPs have to know the facts in order to do our job, and that the general public has to know the facts in order to

make informed judgments on issues of the day.

Inquiries in Ontario have generally been done by independent people. They have tended to revolve around findings of fact and recommendations with respect to

public policy. There was a bit of a sea change in attitude back in the early 1970s when there was an inquiry into certain aspects of the granting of a Hydro contract. That inquiry was done by a

committee of the Legislature. The issue was basically whether or not the Premier had influenced the granting of the Hydro contract. At the end of that committee, there was a unanimous report

finding that the Premier had not in any way attempted to influence the granting of the contract. However, the government members said Hydro had not been in any way influenced by the Premier's

personal acquaintance with the person getting the contract. The opposition members said they felt Hydro officials had been influenced by the fact this person was a friend of the Premier.

The net result of all that was there was a general perception among the public that the findings of fact made by the committee were done on a partisan basis as

opposed to an objective basis. Since then, when the government has thought in terms of the need for an inquiry where findings of fact are required, they have tended almost invariably to refer it to

an independent person.

I might say that I am of the view, as I think most Ontarians would be, that the calling of inquiries is primarily an executive function and should be an

executive function. However, there should be a safeguard in our system to permit the Legislature to call an inquiry if there is a strong view within the Legislature from the elected people that one

is needed. Since this is in effect overruling a decision of the cabinet, the threshold for the amount of support required should be higher than a simple majority. The bill proposes two thirds as

the number of members who would have to support the bringing of a motion. There's no magic in two thirds; perhaps it should be three quarters or perhaps it should be 60%. But I would urge upon the

House the proposition that this is really a legislative check on an executive function, and that because it is that, it should require something more than a simple majority to have it put before

the House.

What this effectively means is that for the Legislature to move to set up an inquiry, there's going to have to be substantial support from the opposition side of

the House, almost certainly from both opposition parties, and there's going to have to be substantial support at least from the government backbenchers. So we have a situation where if we are going

to overrule a cabinet decision, there has to be some fairly widespread support among the MPPs, which is going to indicate widespread support from the public that such an inquiry is needed.

This is a mechanism used in a good number of democratic jurisdictions throughout the world. One of the classic ones is the American system, where the President

has the right to veto legislation passed by the Congress, but on the other hand, the Congress has a right to override the veto of the President. The override of the veto is not by simple majority

but by a two-thirds vote. There are all kinds of mechanisms of this nature that we can find throughout democratic jurisdictions. I think it's a subtle thing of which the public may not immediately

know all the details, but I think the public does understand the need for checks and balances in our system.

The British parliamentary system, of which we are heirs, has a 700-year history of looking for ways to make government work best for the people. One important

aspect of that search for the right way of doing government business has always been to strike the right balance between the judiciary, the executive and the legislative branches of government. We

do it a little differently than, say, our friends in the United States -- I would argue we do it a little more subtly perhaps than our friends in the States -- but it's just as important here and

in a parliamentary system to have the right system of checks and balances among those branches of government. This proposal today really is what I believe to be a positive adjustment in the balance

between the executive and the Legislature to make our system as a whole work better.

There may be some concerns raised today, and I'm going to be listening very closely to see what those may be. One may be that if we were to give this power to

the Legislature it would be used irresponsibly, that we would get into partisan wrangling, invasions of privacy and concerns of that nature. I am not concerned that we may get into problems of that

nature because I believe the members of the Legislature will use this power responsibly if it's given to them. They'll do that, one, because they want to do the right thing, and two, because the

public is going to insist they do so. If members use a power of this nature irresponsibly, I think the electors are going to take note of that and act accordingly.

I would invite members to give some careful thought to this. I would hope that should approval in principle be given today, this would be referred to one of the

standing committees and I'm going to make a suggestion on that, if we get to that point today. I would hope that if we do, all members will take a look at the bill, look at ways in which it should

be improved, and present amendments at that committee. Once the committee has done its work -- and heard from the public, I hope, as well -- I would hope that the bill might come back here for

third and final reading.

I do think that process does matter, because if we have a better process, we get better results. That's really why I'm putting this proposal before the House

today. The fundamental basis why I'm doing so is this: I think democracy and transparency do work, and I think this is a significant step to making them work better in this province. I would hope

that after they've had a chance to consider what's in the bill and consider the principles behind it, put forward any amendments that are deemed to be needed to improve the bill, that we will

indeed be able to pass this bill. Then, where a matter comes forward to the attention of the Legislature and the public where many people think an inquiry is needed, if the cabinet does not do what

the majority of members think is needed or a majority of the public thinks is needed, if that majority is strong enough, it'll be possible for the Legislature itself to take action. So we're

perhaps less likely to hear concerns as we do now that things are being covered up and things are not being investigated that should be investigated. Should we have a bill along the lines of this

bill, it's really all the representatives of the people who have made that ultimate decision. They have taken a look at the issue and not a sufficiently large number have concluded that action is

needed.

I think if we bring this particular provision in, should the cabinet have some reluctance on some issue, as we find a petition circulating that's getting to

two-thirds of members, that may be an opportunity for the cabinet to take a look at the situation again and take a second look at their decision to make sure that they're fully comfortable with

what they've decided because, of course, the possibility exists that their decision may be changed by others.

I hope that we'll have a good debate today and I hope that at the end of the day we'll have second reading of the bill.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): This is kind of an amazing event this morning to be debating this bill -- not that the bill itself is

amazing. In fact, it sounds like something anyone would want to support. I've always believed that you don't go so much by what someone says but by what they do.

I'd like to look at this bill in the past eight years' history of this Legislature. In this bill, the mover indicates that it's so that people know the facts;

let's get the facts out to the public. I couldn't support that principle more. But if we look at history over the last eight years, we have seen things as simple as freedom of information that

exists so that people can know the facts -- all kinds of blocks put into place on it. We're seeing government ministries very reluctant to give information. We're seeing six months or a year for

them to respond. We've seen horrendous costs go on for an individual to get information. I believe the Provincial Auditor said a couple of years ago that if an MPP makes a request under freedom of

information, it is channelled through the Premier's Office so that there's a further delay put in place. Clearly they don't want the facts out. We're seeing organizations like Hydro One set up in

such a way that they're not subject to freedom of information. History tells us that this government hasn't tried in any way to conform to the philosophy of this bill. The Provincial Auditor, I

believe, has on occasion raised the issue that even for the Provincial Auditor, an independent servant of this Legislature, ministries are blocking information to that office.

So when you say that people need to know the facts, we need to see some substance to it. We need to see some history that that, in fact, is what is

happening.

The mover of this bill -- and I commend him for bringing it forward; I'm sure he's very sincere -- made reference to British parliamentary tradition. As recently

as yesterday, the entire government voted against British parliamentary tradition when they would not support the bill that the government was in contempt on presenting the budget at Magna rather

than here in the Legislature. This government has said, "We don't respect British parliamentary tradition. We're going to do it in a shopping centre or a bowling alley or something next time."

Those words ring rather hollow when I hear about the British parliamentary tradition.

The budget is the government's philosophy put into numbers. It is the government's programs put into numbers. The people, if they want to know what services are

going to be provided to them, need to not only have access to the numbers but need to have the opportunity to have questions asked. The questions are asked by the opposition. That's our role. If

the mover believes there needs to be a check and balance, that's what the Legislature exists for, yet there was no opportunity at this infobudget for the opposition to ask the questions that have

come to us from our constituents. I'm still trying to merge in my mind the philosophy that we want everyone to know the facts versus the reality that we're seeing the facts continually blocked.

Again, we need only to go back a few days to the order in council. Orders in council, as I understand it, are public documents fairly quickly after being

approved by the cabinet, yet an unprecedented order in council appropriated for this government $36 billion. That's such a huge number, I think most of us have trouble actually sensing what it is.

Thirty-six billion dollars was quietly appropriated and, for some very strange reason, out of all the orders in council that are made public, that particular item was lost. It's probably a

coincidence, but the public needs to know. I'm sounding a little bit like the Enquirer, but like the Enquirer, the public needs to know and wants to know.

We have not seen, out of this government, any openness whatsoever. I'm sure the member on the government side from Ottawa West-Nepean, to his credit, has tried

numerous times to get an inquiry held into some of the incidents in the Cornwall area. I believe it's the government side that voted against an inquiry -- each and every time -- that was requested

by one of their own most credible members.

When we look at this bill, we see that it requires two thirds -- and maybe that can be altered to 60% or 70%, but if it's any number over 50%, then it really

doesn't give the Legislature the power to call an inquiry, because the Premier will be able to control the vote on his or her side of the House and there isn't an openness to it.

The member for Ottawa West-Nepean has to have experienced the frustration of trying to get an inquiry that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people in his

community -- he has brought numerous petitions to this Legislature, yet the government was able to block any inquiry held into what is a most important issue for that part of the province and

indeed for all of the province.

So we're really not giving any power to the Legislature with this. We're still going to have the government able to control.

I look at this bill and I apply what I believe is the ultimate test to it: if this bill were in place eight years ago, would this Legislature have been able to

trigger an inquiry into the death of Dudley George? The answer is no, it would not have been effective, because we would see again a government side choosing to vote to absolutely block it. We have

seen request after request come from the public, from the media, from this side of the House. So would this bill have made life better and would this bill have provided justice to the Dudley George

family?

The only reason I can think of to not hold an inquiry is cost. Certainly no one will want to support a frivolous request simply to run the bill up. But the

purpose of an inquiry is to clear the air and lay the facts out. If there is no problem, if there is no evidence that would prove to be embarrassing or even worse for an individual, surely everyone

would want to support the inquiry. If everyone involved in the Dudley George incident had behaved appropriately, if they had done everything they were supposed to do by the book, then they should

want an inquiry. They should be in support of an inquiry, saying, "Hold an inquiry so that the air is cleared, so there is no longer this cloud hanging over me." Surely the government would want to

deal with that and say, "I want to get rid of this cloud, this question, this uncertainty," and what is hurting their reputation. But the government very clearly is opposed.

I guess my belief is that this bill sounds good but it won't change one little thing. It won't change anything if there is not goodwill on the part of the

government to actually believe in it and enforce it. We determine whether that goodwill exists by saying, "Let's look at history; let's look at eight years."

So I find it terribly ironic that the government puts forward a bill so that people can know the facts when it has spent eight years trying to block information

getting to the public.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I am pleased to speak to this with Mr Prue, one of our Toronto members.

The concern around access to public inquiries has become even more profound over the course of the last eight years. Call after call for a public inquiry into

the slaughter of Dudley George at Ipperwash has been suppressed by this Conservative government. My colleague Mr Guzzo, the member from Ottawa West-Nepean, who has shown incredible tenacity and

courage in pursuing a public inquiry into the so-called Cornwall sex scandal, has found himself rebuffed by his own government.

In fact, we can go down the list. Most recently, Howard Hampton and the New Democrats called for a public inquiry into the provincial and federal handling of the

SARS crisis. The government, of course, was unresponsive.

David Christopherson, our Hamilton member, pressed for a public inquiry around the Plastimet fire and the impact on firefighters and residents in the area of the

Plastimet factory.

New Democrats called for a public inquiry into the abuse of young prisoners -- the alleged abuse; fair enough -- at Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre.

New Democrats have called for a public inquiry into the Pickering nuclear plant overruns and delays.

New Democrats have called for a public inquiry into the Hydro culture of greed. You remember that? Remember the Hydro culture of greed? Remember Ms Clitheroe,

the hand-picked Conservative appointee, Ms Clitheroe of the multi-hundred-thousand-dollar car allowance? Where I come from, you can buy a Chevy Impala for less than 30 grand, and that's with

leather. Down at David Chev-Olds on Niagara Street, go see Cathy Robertson and she'll give you a Chevy Impala, fully loaded, leather, air, for less than 30 grand. Cathy Robertson down at David

Chev-Olds, a unionized car dealership -- CAW -- down on Niagara Street in Welland, probably cuts a better deal than any other sales people at any other dealership: a Chevy Impala with leather,

fully loaded, air, for less than 30 grand. But Ms Clitheroe, the hand-picked Tory appointee, needs a car allowance that would buy her a Rolls or a Bentley a year. Again, where Mr Bradley or I come

from, you can buy three or four houses or you can pay the salaries of more than a few nurses anywhere in this province for the car allowance alone that the Tories granted Ms Clitheroe, their

electricity appointee; never mind the multi-million-dollar salary and the multi-million-dollar golden handshake.

You see, the government wanted Hydro to be run as if it were a private corporation and to appreciate and experience all the efficiencies of a private

corporation, which means these huge multi-million-dollar salaries and golden handshakes, plus all the perks, plus a sailboat of her own -- and not some little dingy that you're taking out of Ray's

Marina down in Port Colborne into Lake Erie to do some fishing; we're talking about a yacht.

New Democrats called for a public inquiry into the Hydro culture of greed this Conservative government created. Mr Prue will recall the call for a public inquiry

into the Jeff Lyons scandal, another -- dare I say it -- Tory friend, Tory intimate, a Tory who's privy to -- who is so intimate that the pillow talk is probably more significant than the written

communiqués.

But let's take a look at this bill, because we find ourselves very frustrated in the frequent calls for public inquiries, all that more frequent during the

course of the last eight years of Conservative rule here in Ontario.

We've joined Mr Guzzo in his call for a public inquiry into the atrocious, scandalous, evil, criminal prospect of a literal cover-up of child abuse, of sexual

assaults on children by some of the most powerful people, it's alleged, in the community. Mr Guzzo's own government has not heeded his call. I've been at the end-of-session negotiations where all

three House leaders participate, and in an effort to demonstrate, yes, co-operation, as we do when it's to the end of seeing private members' bills receive at least second reading, perhaps even

third, I've prevailed upon the government House leader to include Mr Guzzo's resolutions and bills among the things to which New Democrats would give consent, because there isn't a fair-minded

member of this Legislature who doesn't believe there should be a public inquiry into the obscene events in Cornwall.

This is not the first bill of its type that's been introduced, indeed by the same author, and New Democrats supported this author's Bill 12. Bill 12, quite

frankly, warranted going to committee, perhaps for some fine-tuning; Bill 12, now dead because Mr Eves, the Premier, prorogued the House suddenly on the eve of the House being required to return,

which of course led into a whole other scandalous series of weeks whereby the government delayed the return of the Legislature, presented a bogus budget at Magna, found themselves caught up in

almost two weeks of government members debating the -- colloquially referred to -- contempt motion.

Mind you, they defeated the motion, but do you know what, Speaker? They didn't defeat the ruling of the Speaker. In every Erskine and May, every Beauchesne,

every parliamentary guide that's going to be published from this day forward, whether it's the 30th edition, the 31st, the 32nd, look up "Contempt" in the index and Speaker Gary Carr's ruling is

going to be there -- no two ways about it.

Interjection.

Mr Kormos: Oh, the vote does not detract from the ruling of the Speaker. If you don't understand anything about the last three and a half weeks,

understand this: in every parliamentary reference book, both Canadian and British, and indeed from every other jurisdiction that uses the parliamentary system, under the index where it says

"Contempt" -- contempt with a capital C -- there's going to be a page number with significant reference to the ruling of Speaker Gary Carr of the provincial Legislature. Sorry, it's fixed. Our

Speaker Gary Carr, who is a wonderful person in his own right, and I've enjoyed his friendship -- I think all of us have. The majority of the House voted for him. He has made his mark in

parliamentary history.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): With a landmark decision.

Mr Kormos: As Mr Bradley says, with a landmark decision, which is how I just got him into Hansard during the course of my comments on this

bill.

Bill 12 provided that any member of the Legislature -- implied equality of members -- can call for a public inquiry and that it had to be put to a vote within 60

days. Of course there is the floodgates prospect, that member after member will be calling for public inquiries into everything from soup to nuts, into everything from legitimate to less than

legitimate. That's a problem. I acknowledge that. That's why I say that Bill 12 should have had the opportunity to be scrutinized by committee, because the fundamental principle is a good one.

Bill 12 didn't provide, for instance, for a period of debate. Bill 12 didn't provide for a manner of screening frivolous calls for public inquiries. But there

could have been amendments to Bill 12 that did that. However, this bill requires -- it's not that any single member can call for a public inquiry -- that if two thirds of the members of the

Legislature call for a public inquiry, then it must be put to a vote.

Depending upon the distribution of members among their various caucuses, there could be scenarios wherein the government's majority couldn't be used to knock

that out of the ballpark. I suspect it's going to be some time before we experience huge majority governments in this province, but I could be wrong in that regard.

I find it regrettable that the member has set that standard at two thirds. Two thirds implies, let's say, an overwhelming majority. I wonder if perhaps 50% plus

one, which would indicate there's some possibility or likelihood of success of the resolution, might not be a fairer number, and might also accommodate different configurations of the House in

terms of where members sit with respect to the three caucuses, whether it's a majority or minority government and how large the majority is.

New Democrats, with some regret, will not support this bill for that reason. New Democrats would have much preferred Bill 12 having been presented again. I

understand, as well, that the two-thirds concept is consistent with other areas around which this member has been advocating. I don't quarrel with that.

At the end of the day, though, we should also put this into the context of how independent, how capable any given member is of representing their constituents

and speaking out. As a matter of fact, there are both Conservative platform policy and Liberal platform policy that talk about changing the rules to create free votes. There are no rules

prohibiting free votes. No changes to the standing orders are required. All it requires is some guts and gonads on the part of individual members.

Think about it. All you've got to do is stand in your place and say no, if you believe your government is wrong. It has been done before. It will be done again.

It doesn't require changes to the standing orders. It doesn't require changes to the rules. It simply requires courageous and conscientious members of the Legislative Assembly, women and men who

are prepared to put the interests of the people ahead of their standing in the pecking order of their caucus, ahead of their pursuit of junkets and little, greasy jobs within the caucus that

provide extra pay.

The serious fault in this bill is the two-thirds requirement. Bill 12 as it stood we would have welcomed, as we did, and would support and encourage it going to

committee. It is with regret that that two thirds prevents us from supporting this bill today.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean): I welcome the opportunity to take

part in this debate. I first of all wish to commend the member for

London West for this bill, for bringing it forward and for allowing me the opportunity to speak to it.

I think there have been some interesting comments made already this morning by the previous speakers of the opposition, and I have to agree with some of them.

But that does not diminish the importance of this legislation. We all come here and we all pay lip service to democracy and we all talk about the democratization of this House. I would be willing

to admit that, having watched this House prior to coming here and in the eight years I've been here, we have moved in the wrong direction. That has not happened. I don't see it happening in the

federal House in Ottawa and I don't see it happening in many democracies around the world, particularly recently in the United States.

What we have here is the essence of democracy in the 21st century. I suggest that no member of this House would really be opposed to this bill. It is a step

forward. The member for Niagara Centre made some good points with regard to the previous bill in comparing the two. I make no comment upon what has to be done in order to advance the envelope in

matters of items such as this.

I come from a life in a courtroom, where you're constantly seeking the truth. I honestly thought when I came here that it would be a continuation of that effort

to put the truth first. I have certainly experienced, as has been mentioned here, examples where the opposite has taken place: there has been a deliberate attempt to keep the truth from becoming

part of the public record.

We all agree that an informed citizenry tends to promote responsible government, but unfortunately, in the electronic age and the 500-channel universe, voters

receive a tremendous amount of information but receive very little power to seek resolution to the problems they face through their elected representatives. This is what a legislative-sponsored

inquiry system would offer. It would offer empowerment of both the voters and those of us as tenants in these seats. This is an opportunity for each and every member of this Legislature to stand

and deliver for their constituents, enhance the access to the information and force the release of that information.

The basic premise of this bill and of what we do here has to be that the public has a right to know. There are very, very few times when a government has the

right to suppress information. Certainly we have seen it in times of war and we see it in issues of public security, but the public's right to know and to make an informed decision is the basis of

our democracy and the backbone of our system.

I ask you to compare some examples of what we have seen in this House and elsewhere. The tainted blood scandal: 7,000 Canadians lost their lives because of

mistakes that were made at Tunney's Pasture in Ottawa, the federal Department of Health, and Queen's Park. Walkerton: seven people passed away. The Cornwall situation, to which two members have

referred and that I have put forward on two occasions in private members' bills: we've had at least five suicides that we know of, possibly more. The member of that riding has been a strong

supporter of those bills that he knows better than do I. Ipperwash: one member of the George family.

What do we know, what does the public know, about each of those four cases? Rather, what has been disclosed in each of those four cases? There are tremendous

differences when you compare the four, tremendous differences when you compare what has been done in relation to the four -- but that's a question for another day. The issue is public information

and the right to know.

In the tainted blood scandal, Mr Justice Krever came down five years ago with an excellent report. It's prescribed reading for every person who wants to indulge

himself of herself in government democracy, and an academic exercise in management as well, quite frankly. Surprisingly, I think five charges have been laid, five years after Mr Justice Krever, 10

years after the events. In Walkerton we've had some charges laid after the inquiry of Mr Justice O'Connor. But in Cornwall and Ipperwash, the message was always that we can't have an inquiry first

because it will impair charges. We continually pointed to the Westray mine situation, where that did not happen, and now we have two examples here ourselves.

I say to the member for Prince Edward-Hastings, just to correct the matter, that my party did not turn on me on the question of Cornwall. In each case, those

bills passed in this House on second reading, one by a 47 to 3 vote and the other by a 56 to 20 vote. As it was more accurately stated by the member from Niagara Centre, it was my government, but

not my party. The majority of this side of the House voted with me on both of those.

I also want to state for the record that I tried yesterday and I will try again today to reintroduce a bill on Cornwall and also introduce a bill on Ipperwash,

if I'm afforded the opportunity, and I hope to be debating one of them next week.

Mr Bradley: As the member for Niagara Centre has stated, I wish we were debating Bill 12 today rather than the present piece of legislation --

Bill 29, I believe it's called. Anyway, Bill 12, the original bill, I thought was a stronger bill and one which was deserving of more support, because Bill 12 said the Public Inquiries Act would be

amended to allow any member of the Legislative Assembly to propose a resolution to set up an inquiry into a matter that the act allows, a resolution that either designates the one or more persons

who are to conduct the inquiry or requires the Speaker of the assembly or the Lieutenant Governor in Council to appoint them. The assembly would be required to vote on the resolution within 60

sessional days after it was proposed. I thought it was an excellent bill, and I think that would have gone a long way to empowering elected members of the Ontario Legislature to initiate

inquiries.

Unfortunately -- and I cannot read the member's mind, but I think he was trying to gather more support within the government caucus for this through the

watering-down, if I may use that word, of the bill that now allows for a two-thirds majority of the members of the House to call for an inquiry or have signed a request that an inquiry be held.

I think it's a step forward, and I want to commend the member for that. I did prefer his original bill. I'm sure the Premier and others within the cabinet did

not like his original bill, because, again, it would have given individual members even more power.

There obviously have been needs for public inquiries that have not been met. The one that comes to mind most often is the situation that happened at Ipperwash,

where Premier Harris, and subsequently Premier Eves, have consistently denied the opportunity for a public inquiry into that circumstance. I need not go into the details of it. My colleague Gerry

Phillips, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, has on numerous occasions asked Premiers and Attorneys General and called for an inquiry many editorialists have done so. I think it cries out for an

inquiry. The government has blocked this on every occasion and refused to call the inquiry. If we had a situation in Bill 12, the original bill that the member brought before us, I think we might

well have an inquiry into Ipperwash, but for two thirds of members it's much more difficult to achieve that.

I think an independent inquiry into everything surrounding the SARS situation would have been helpful simply to learn what happened, how it happened and how in

the future we can improve in any way a situation that confronts the province. An independent inquiry would have been very useful in that regard. I don't think it would have been partisan or

particularly vitriolic. It would have been very straightforward, it would have dealt with the issues and I think the province would have benefited, and not only our province; I remember speaking to

the member for Perth-Middlesex the other evening and we think other provinces could learn from our experience in Ontario.

There are so many situations with what we used to call Ontario Hydro, now Hydro One, and the generating end of that. Both require inquiries into what has

happened because most of this is behind closed doors. So often we are told we can't get this information because it is to be kept secret for business or other reasons. Another good example, I

think, would be to have an inquiry into the sale of Highway 407. There are many provisions there. Unfortunately, there are secrecy provisions that are imposed upon this Legislature. They don't have

to reveal information. I think it would be good for the public to know all aspects of what happened with the sale of Highway 407 just before the last provincial election so the government could

balance its budget, of what I think many people have justifiably called a fire sale.

My friend the Liberal member for Hamilton East called for an inquiry into the Plastimet fire in Hamilton. A Walkerton inquiry was called after great public

pressure, but it would have been nice to have the backup of -- well, it was. My good friend the former Attorney General of the province, now the minister of lots of good things, enterprise and

making the economy better, Jim Flaherty is in the House today. I want his constituents to know he's here today. I don't think we would have had an inquiry into Walkerton without a lot of public

pressure. I'm glad it was called. By the way, I think the person chosen for the inquiry was a good choice. The province benefited from an inquiry that we in the opposition had called for.

I want to put all this in the context of the member and some of his initiatives in this House. What has clearly happened under the Harris and Eves

administrations is that the role of the individually elected member has been diminished considerably. We have seen rule changes in this House which simply allow ministers now to virtually dictate

the amount of time that legislation will go through the House. The opposition has little opportunity to slow down or modify legislation because of the government majority and the new rules.

Essentially, the government has been put into the hands of some backroom whiz kids who have more influence, even to this day, than elected members of this Legislature. Of course, they were the

people who advised the Premier that he should have the budget of Ontario delivered at an auto parts training facility in Ontario instead of in the Legislature. I know that there are members, such

as the member for Ottawa West-Nepean and, I suspect in his heart of hearts, the member for London West, who would have preferred that it be held in the Ontario Legislature. We see this happening on

an ongoing basis.

I would like to see an inquiry into the government advertising that is going on at the present time, millions upon millions of dollars being spent on huge

signs on the highway, with the Premier's name on it and a political message, and they're not even sites of construction. Television commercials, radio commercials, full-page ads in newspapers,

inserts in newspapers, pamphlets arriving at the house day after day: that would be the subject of a good inquiry. It would not happen if two thirds of the members were required to have such an

inquiry.

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I appreciate the opportunity this morning to address some of my concerns and some of my endorsements for

this bill. I'd like to start off with the author of the bill, the member for London West. I've sat beside him for quite a while now, and you get to know a little bit about a person when you're

sitting beside them. The member for London West is hard-working and dedicated and he has a very keen mind. He's a lawyer. I can recall sitting beside a member, Doug Rollins. I enjoyed his company

and learned a great deal from him. I also sat beside David Tilson. David was a lawyer as well. I just wanted to say that I've expressed my opinion to both Mr Tilson and Mr Wood that just because

they're lawyers, I've never held that against them at all. The member for London West has a great sense of right and wrong, and democracy and freedom, and what this chamber and this Legislative

Assembly are about and should be about. This bill that he's brought to us this morning indicates his dedication toward democracy.

I take with interest some of the comments of the other people who have addressed this bill this morning. I was particularly listening to the member for Prince

Edward-Hastings when he was talking about free votes. Yes, private members' business is a time for free votes. He thinks there should be others. I can remember that the last time there was going to

be, supposedly, a free vote in this House, his caucus, to a person, along with the NDP, to a person, stood up in unanimity. I thought that was an interesting concept of a free vote.

I listened intently to the member for Niagara Centre. He as well is a lawyer and has a keen mind. When he gets away from partisan politics he can be a very

interesting and engaging individual, and he certainly brings a different point of view to a lot of issues. His colleague the member for Trinity-Spadina, I can recall with a little bit of mirth, not

so very long ago was commenting on the budget being released at Magna in Brampton, and referring to Frank Stronach as such a great buddy of the government of Ontario, and indeed I hope he is. I

hope he has changed, because I can recall that in 1988 the same man ran as a Liberal. It's intriguing how different members bring different issues to it.

I wanted to say that the member for London West feels and deeply believes that this bill is part of democracy, and I can't argue or disagree with him in that

at all. I think there are so many pressing issues. We could have had inquiries, perhaps, and some of them have mentioned some recent ones. I think back to the Hagersville fire. I think back to the

Patti Starr affair. I don't remember the public inquiries for those, so I don't intend to make any apologies for the decisions that have been made by the executive council in calling inquiries in

this province.

With that, I have a great deal of gratitude in being able to speak toward this bill and being able to represent the people of Perth-Middlesex in saying that I

agree wholeheartedly with it and I will be voting in favour of it.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): Like the previous speakers, I support the bill. I think the member from London West should be

congratulated for bringing it forward. I'm not going to say I'm totally without reservations on it. I believe that opposition parties of all stripes, whatever government there is in this place,

make an attempt to embarrass the government from time to time. That's the nature of politics. There are calls for inquiries on a fairly regular basis, and I can see that it could be potentially

embarrassing to any government. On the other hand, the requirement built into the bill that at least two thirds of the members sign on to any request for a public inquiry should in itself be

protection. A simple majority would, I think, encourage abuse,

whereas if you get two thirds of the members of this place to sign on to a request for a public inquiry into any issue, then that

should be adequate.

I also believe this ties in quite neatly with what the Premier has stated on occasion: that he would like to see more democratization in this place, that he

would like to see more representation by the members in this place of their constituents. That cannot be achieved under the present system.

So I would like to say that the member from London West should be congratulated. I don't believe this is a political bill. There is no partisanship expressed,

although there was a little bit on the opposition benches, but that's to be expected. I think we can accept that.

The Acting Speaker: The member for London West has two minutes to reply.

Mr Wood: I'd like to thank all the members who participated in the debate. I'd like to deal briefly with two concerns that were expressed, and

then deal in a little more detail with the major concern that appears to have been expressed. I'm going to go right into my two minutes.

A couple of concerns were expressed that this gives no power to the Legislature because the members will simply follow the government line and not be prepared

to support any inquiry the government is not prepared to support. That, of course, can happen. This bill cannot give a sense of responsibility to any MPPs. If they want to follow the government

line and not do what they think is right for the province, there's nothing the law or the rules can do about that. I have confidence in the MPPs. I think they're all here to do the right thing, and

I think they will try to do the right thing.

Some specific instances were mentioned where members thought an inquiry should have been held when it wasn't. Certainly those points of view are legitimate. My

response to that is that this mechanism gives a greater chance for an inquiry to be held than we have now, so I would encourage members who have concerns to consider supporting the bill.

The main and major concern I heard expressed was the issue of the two-thirds petition. The reason for that is that I see the calling of inquiries as primarily

an executive function. I see a role for the Legislature as a check and balance on the decision that's made by the cabinet. So I think it should more than a simple majority. Preference was expressed

by some of the members for Bill 12 over this bill. The principle of both bills in my mind is the same: either you're for some MPP input into whether or not an inquiry is going to be held or you're

not. I would invite members to consider whether or not they support that principle, and if they do support that principle, I would invite them to support this bill.

There is an opportunity to move this issue forward. I'm going to ask that this bill go to committee if it's passed. I invite members to support the principle

of the bill.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allocated for debate on ballot item number 7. I will place the question at 12 o'clock noon.

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES

AMENDMENT ACT

(WATER SOURCE PROTECTION), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RESSOURCES EN EAU

DE L'ONTARIO

(PROTECTION DES SOURCES

D'ALIMENTATION EN EAU)

Mrs Dombrowsky moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 35,

An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act with respect to water source protection / Projet de loi 35, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les ressources en

eau de l'Ontario en ce qui concerne la protection des sources d'alimentation en eau.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member has up to 10 minutes for her presentation.

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): I'm delighted that I -- actually, I guess it is with some mixed emotions that

I stand in the Legislature this morning to speak to a private member's bill. This is the third time I've introduced this bill in the Legislature, and it's one that I feel very strongly about. I

think it's important for the people of Ontario because it deals with something we all need every day, each and every one of us, and that is water.

The bill speaks particularly to water source protection. It very simply puts in legislation that when the Ministry of the Environment considers permits to take

water in any and every community in the province, it must do three things: it must notify municipalities; it must notify conservation authorities; and, finally, and I think most importantly, it

must consider its own statement of environmental values when considering permits to take water.

I want to talk briefly about the history of this bill, how it is that it has come to pass and how it is that I've presented it three times in the Legislature.

There was a situation in my own riding where residents in the community of Centre Hastings were shocked indeed to find out that a permit to take water had been granted for a significant amount of

water to be removed from Rodden Creek. Rodden Creek is a very important creek in the community because it feeds into the community of Stirling, and many farms rely on that water source. They were

quite alarmed when they heard there was a permit to take water granted for the purpose of removing water to have it bottled. They were worried about the impact that was going to have on the water

source that they relied on for their crops, to feed their animals and then on into the community of Stirling, where it is a significant feature in that community as well.

As we came to do a little research on the issue, it was brought to our attention that the way the legislation is written is that communities and conservation

authorities "may," not "shall," be notified. We think it is absolutely essential that communities, municipalities and conservation authorities -- conservation authorities being those groups who

have the responsibility to manage watersheds -- should have this information. As the bill evolved, we also included that the ministry must consider its own statement of environmental values.

The reason that particular part has been placed in the bill is that in the community of Perth there is a very controversial permit to take water that has been

granted in that area. It was made public that a business, OMYA, was granted a permit to take water from the Tay River for an amount of 1.5 million litres of water a day. This is an alarmingly large

amount for the people in that community, particularly people who have interests in the Tay River. When I say "interests," they may use it as a water source or it may be flowing through the

community. There was a very real concern that by removing that amount of water, it would have an impact on the water levels and also that that would have -- pardon the pun -- a ripple effect into

Bob's Lake, which is the headwater of the Tay River, which is located in my riding.

The other part of that particular permit is that over a period of time the amount of water that will be removed from the river will increase to 4.5 million

litres of water a day. People in the community felt that was just totally unreasonable and that in fact the ministry had not considered its own statement of environmental values, which very clearly

state that when considering permits to take water, it would be essential that they appreciate the ecosystem impact that such a removal would have.

The ministry was challenged by members of the community on this permit. During the challenge it was quite interesting that the ministry argued in its defence

that it did not have to consider the statement of environmental values because it was not legislated. This bill will legislate that the ministry must consider its statement of environmental values

when considering permits to take water.

We then had the Walkerton Inquiry and the report from Mr Justice Dennis O'Connor, which was very comprehensive and which did speak to water source protection.

It was interesting as well that the government, while it did implement some of the recommendations, had up until as recently as last fall done absolutely nothing to implement any regulations around

water source protection. This is something that is cited by the Canadian Environmental Law Association where they wrote in April of this year that CELA had previously been concerned that while they

saw "the government proceed with various recommendations from the Walkerton Inquiry, including consultations on the then proposed Safe Drinking Water Act and the then proposed sustainable water and

sewer systems legislation," they had not seen "any response on the recommendations concerning water source protection."

However, later on last year in November, the government did undertake an advisory committee. CELA sat on this committee. The goal of the committee was to

establish a framework which outlines accountability roles and responsibilities for water source protection.

At the present time, there are proposed regulations on the EBR Web site. In the first two statements that are contained in this bill, the regulations would

require that the ministry must contact municipalities, conservation authorities and abutting landowners. However, the regulations, I would suggest, are very unclear about any commitment to the

statement of environmental values and that it must consider those.

I'm sure we will hear from government members that this bill is redundant, that it's going to be in regulations in the very near future, but what I'm saying

here this morning is that it is absolutely essential that this bill is passed. As recently as yesterday we have seen what can happen to government regulations. They can be amended, they can be

added to, they can be taken away and no one has any opportunity to make any comment on that.

We in the Liberal Party are absolutely committed to water source protection. In our platform document, Growing Strong Communities, Dalton McGuinty has

committed, unlike the Harris-Eves government, to implement every recommendation of the Walkerton Inquiry. We will, we are committed, we are prepared to put in legislation that, with regard to

permits to take water, municipalities must be notified, conservation authorities must be notified and that the statement of environmental values for the Ministry of the Environment must be

considered when permits to take water are considered by the Ministry of the Environment. It's not a matter of leaving it to regulation, which may or may not be changed; we believe this is so

important that it must be enshrined in law.

The Canadian Environmental Law Association indicated in its release on April 23, 2003, that it will be writing to the government and to each political party

asking each to commit to adopt the framework, which would be the regulation in its entirety, as part of any party platform. It very much wants to see a commitment to water source protection.

I would say that we are prepared, on this side of the House, to go one better than what's proposed even in the framework. We are prepared to make this the law

in the province, not simply part of a regulation that may or not be changed at one point in the future. Certainly, given the record of this government and how it deals with and manages regulations,

I don't think it's anything we want to leave at that status. It requires a legislative solution. That is what is being proposed here this morning.

Hon Doug Galt (Minister without Portfolio): I first want to thank the member for introducing

an Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act

with respect to water source protection.

I want to assure everyone in this Legislature that we share the member's belief in the need to protect the source waters that are so important to the people of

Ontario. Our government recognizes the need to protect water at every step, from source to tap. That's why we've developed the most comprehensive clean water strategy in the history of our

province. Our strategy is based on the premise that well-protected water is absolutely fundamental to the high quality of life we enjoy in Ontario.

We are taking action on many fronts to protect Ontario's water supplies and ensure those supplies are indeed sustainable. Our efforts include proceeding

quickly to implement changes and address recent concerns about the permit to take water program. We're always open to new ways to improve the effectiveness of our programs.

However, the private member's bill introduced today --

an Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act with respect to water source protection -- is not

necessary because everything in it is being addressed by our work to improve the permit to take water program.

Before I talk about our program in more detail, I want to put it into context by outlining some of the unprecedented actions we've taken to ensure that

Ontarians have access to the best drinking water in the world. In August 2000 we introduced Operation Clean Water, highlighted by the drinking water protection regulation, which most of you will

know as regulation 459. The regulation gave Ontario's first-ever legally enforceable standards for drinking water quality, as well as strict requirements for testing, treatment and reporting. We

also implemented annual inspection of all municipal water facilities to ensure compliance with the regulation.

These efforts were complemented in other areas as we worked to create a comprehensive strategy that protects drinking water, both at the source and at the tap.

With the release of Commissioner Dennis O'Connor's report of the Walkerton Inquiry, we gained a new focus in our efforts. Commissioner O'Connor's report amounts to a new vision of how we can

provide stronger, more integrated protections for Ontario's drinking water. The Ontario government embraces O'Connor's vision, and we are committed to implementing all of the 120 recommendations

made by the commission.

The creation of a Safe Drinking Water Act is one of his key recommendations. The act represents a major step forward in water system management and

accountability. It provides the legislative authority to implement 50 of the 93 recommendations made in part two of Commissioner O'Connor's report. The Safe Drinking Water Act builds on our

existing policies and practices, like the drinking water protection regulation and our tough inspection regime. These will be rolled into the new act over time.

The Safe Drinking Water Act was passed in December 2002, and we're now working on a series of attendant regulations that will (1) make Ontario the first

province with authority to require mandatory licensing and accreditation of laboratories that perform drinking water testing; (2) require the establishment of a standards advisory council, and

provide authority to set standards for drinking water treatment, distribution, quality and testing; (3) require the certification of all drinking water system operators, including those operators

who have been grandparented under the old certification regime; (4) require an owner's licence for municipal drinking water systems; (5) hold municipalities with oversight functions to a statutory

standard of care; and (6) provide the Ontario government with the authority to strengthen compliance and enforcement provisions.

As well, a new position of chief water inspector has been created. This symbolizes an important step toward increased accountability.

When the necessary regulations are in place, the Safe Drinking Water Act will provide Ontario with the strongest-ever safeguards to protect the water that

comes out of our taps.

Another important piece of legislation I should mention at this point is the Sustainable Water and Sewage Systems Act. The purpose of this act is self-evident.

It is meant to ensure that we have effective water and sewage services protecting our health, not just today or for the foreseeable future but for generations to come.

I would now like to turn to the source protection component of our integrated clean water strategy.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Galt: Commissioner O'Connor made 22 recommendations with respect to source protection, and if the member for Kingston and the Islands

would just listen, I'll continue with my presentation. I hope I'm not interrupting him too much.

We have been working diligently to ensure that we come up with actions that will best meet those recommendations. Last November we announced the creation of

the advisory committee on watershed-based source protection. The committee afforded us an opportunity to hear from a wide range of interests and backgrounds involved in the protection of water

sources. The final report was released on April 21 of this year.

The advisory committee on watershed-based source protection has provided us with a number of excellent recommendations on ways to protect the sources of our

drinking water in accordance with the work of Commissioner O'Connor. Among other things the advisory committee report is calling on the provincial government to do -- I'm sure the member for

Kingston and the Islands will be interested in all of these points: (1) carry out further consultation on how best to put source protection into place and how to pay for it; (2) establish a

committee of technical experts to develop a process for identifying and managing threats to drinking water sources; and (3) introduce legislation for watershed-based source protection. The

advisory committee provided valuable advice on what this legislation should contain.

We are reviewing these recommendations very carefully and over the next few months the public will have the opportunity to do the same.

I think you can see from this presentation what our government is doing to ensure we have the safest possible water in Ontario. You will see that this bill

being brought forward by the member from Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington is indeed redundant.

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I described a bill an hour ago as being an amazing bill, and this to me is also an amazing bill.

It's amazing from the viewpoint that the member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington has fought fiercely for four years to try to get these changes. The first time and the second time she

introduced the bill, this government voted against it and said, "It's redundant. We don't need to do it." Now we're hearing, "Well, we're actually starting to do it and we're going to do it by

regulation." If it was redundant before, why the changes now? The reality is that this government has not addressed the issues in the bill this member has put forward.

Secondly, where they are starting to make some moves to address the bill, they're doing it by regulation rather than in the bill itself. We have learned the

hard way with this government that by regulation, they're doing business behind closed doors. Things are quietly changed and modified, with no public consultation and no public knowledge of it.

Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals believe this needs to be enshrined as a basic principle, that we are going to protect our water source. All the

energies this government wants to put into cleaning water fail to address the real issue: that we need to stop polluting. We believed for years in Ontario that we had unlimited supplies of clean

water. We now know better than that. This is not rocket science, folks. We know we need to protect the water. This bill addresses some of the commitments. It says that one of the basic

responsibilities of government is to protect our drinking water. "After seven years of neglect, it is time to get it right," says Dalton McGuinty, and he could not be more right on this issue.

We believe, as Liberals, that we need to implement every recommendation -- every recommendation -- of the Walkerton Inquiry, as soon as possible. It is

unbelievable to me that we are stalling on this. For protecting our groundwater, there are some very basic principles that this government violates. When we have permits come forward for things

such as dump expansions, this government is, without any reservation, taking and scoping the range of the environmental assessment -- "scoping" meaning they're taking it and reducing it to make it

fast and easy for the applicant to get it through. I strongly believe that if the proposal presents no risk and no hazard to our groundwater, then there is no problem with going through the full

environmental assessment. It may cost a little more money, but surely we've learned from Walkerton that it is more important to do it right than to do it cheaply. Cheap has cost lives; cheap has

been proven -- I guess it's fair to say this government knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing. We've seen that demonstrated with their regard for the environment.

As a rural resident, for the people who live in rural areas, water is the very essence of life. It makes their farm viable or not. It means they can live on a

particular property or not. Everything that every rural resident cherishes falls apart if they have no groundwater or if their groundwater is polluted. They deserve to know if there's going to be

anything that could potentially affect their groundwater supply. For that reason, I strongly support the member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington on her bill that will require

municipalities to be told. I always believe that if you're going to do something right, it will stand daylight; it will stand the public knowing about it. It needs to be presented in public.

Municipalities that are local-council-represented, elected to represent the people in that particular community, need to know if there is a potential of something that would adversely affect the

residents of that community, the industry in that community, their very lifeblood.

At the moment, the process is that individuals or municipalities or whoever have to keep checking on a regular basis -- meaning daily -- to see if there is any

posting on the EBR, that there may be a water-taking permit or there may be something proposed. Surely we need to respect the municipal people. Surely we need to advise them: "Here is an

application that would adversely affect you." I've said it before and I'll say it again: this isn't rocket science. I suspect we could have almost anyone look at this and say, "Why wouldn't you

tell? Why does it have to be kept a secret?" I don't hear an answer on that. This is a government that, although they talk about Red Tape Commission and they want to reduce it, in fact has created

more obstacles for citizens to get access to information from the government. They have put up all kinds of barriers and hoops for people to jump through to find out what's going on in their

community. I believe if this government truly wanted to protect groundwater and truly wanted to do the right thing, they would do second and third reading on this bill today and get it passed,

because it has the potential to greatly improve the quality of life for Ontario.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I think I'll start, because I might forget in my 15 minutes here, by telling people about Howard

Hampton's and the NDP's Public Power platform for the election that's coming up any day now.

Interjections.

Ms Churley: No props. It's www.publicpower.ca. Within this document, there is --

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): Speak to the bill.

Ms Churley: The Liberals are getting nervous there.

In this document, there are practical solutions for clean air and water. I urge people to take a look at the Web site or, if they don't have access, to give us

a call or e-mail us and we will get the information to them.

I know that after the tragic events in Walkerton -- and we are, by the way, within the time frame of the third anniversary of the deaths and illnesses in

Walkerton. As we all know, all of us agree that that was a huge wake-up call to all of us -- the legislators, the municipal councillors, everybody, the public -- to take better care with our water

that is life-giving and -sustaining and it can kill. That was quite a wake-up call for us, although, as you will recall, at some time before Walkerton happened -- and I'm sure Mr Bradley will

remember this -- there was a death in I believe Barrie. Somebody was drinking water and he got cryptosporidium and died. I remember at that time the NDP raised concerns, and I asked questions in

the House expressing concern and alarm, about what was happening after the major cuts to the Ministry of the Environment and the downloadings, and then of course the privatization of the labs. So

instead of the government rallying and saying, "We'd better take a better look and perhaps beef up what we have in the Ministry of the Environment," after that death in Barrie, they went in the

opposite direction and said, "Don't worry. Everything's OK." In fact it was some time after this that the tragic events happened in Walkerton.

I see a parallel in the Minister of Agriculture's answer yesterday to the question of my leader, Howard Hampton, on meat inspectors. It was alarming in that

the Minister of Agriculture said very similar things in answer to that question about so many meat inspectors being laid off. I believe there are only eight full-time meat inspectors now. The

government said, "Don't worry. Everything's OK," and talked about what a wonderful job they're doing. That was also said when they started to be warned about problems with the cutbacks, downloading

and privatization before Walkerton happened: "Don't worry. It's perfect. We're doing a better job than ever before."

So I would say to the government that it's important to listen to these warnings from the opposition or from whoever else has some kind of expertise and

knowledge about what's going on. That's why I want to say to Ms Dombrowsky today that I support her bill. I know she's made several attempts to get this passed. It's a small piece of a big, major

problem, a big puzzle that Justice O'Connor made recommendations on some time ago: what had to be done to create a regulatory regime that fully protects our water from source to tap.

The bill before us today does some of that. I would argue that to some extent it reiterates some ideas that are already in place, and that's called the

Environmental Bill of Rights, which the NDP brought in, I believe, when we were in government, with all-party support.

Section 11 states that, "The minister shall take every reasonable step to ensure that the ministry statement of environmental values is considered whenever

decisions that might significantly affect the environment are made in the ministry." It also says in sections 5 and 6 that the ministry shall set up an environmental registry for the purposes of

posting proposals for things such as permits to take water, and that citizens and groups shall have a period of 30 days. So those things are already part of the law.

Given the problem around water-taking these days, and I want to refer specifically to a recent decision by the Minister of the Environment when the minister

overturned an Environmental Review Tribunal decision to allow a Swiss multinational company to take massive amounts of water from the Tay River, we were appalled and actually quite surprised that

the minister did it. I didn't think he would after the recommendations from Justice O'Connor, because that was one of the key recommendations, and the government chose to ignore it. It was a test

of the government, and the people in the area felt really betrayed because they participated in the so-called public process. Then, when they won the day originally, the company appealed to the

minister, who caved in to them.

I'm happy to see this bill before us today. I would say to the government that it's a small piece of a bigger puzzle and they should be supporting it. There's

no reason in the world that they shouldn't be doing that. In fact, on the eve of the third anniversary of the tragedy in Walkerton -- and I must say to all members that some of the people in

Walkerton became good friends of mine. I visited Walkerton throughout that whole ordeal. I spent a lot of time there and I talked to some of the people in Walkerton on a regular basis. What I'm

finding, and I'm sure you're not surprised to hear this, is that there are people in Walkerton who are still sick and who will be sick for the rest of their lives. There are children who will have

to have kidney transplants. When you think about the ongoing tragedy to that community, in people's lives and health, it's just astounding.

That's why, three years later I note that there was nothing in this government's platform this time. I referred to that on the day it was released, when they

did it in little go-karts, that their Road Ahead is the road back to Walkerton, full circle. In fact, as some of them came riding out through paper in a little go-kart, I noted, what do go-karts

do? They bump around all over the place but they go full circle. It's not the Road Ahead; it's the road full circle back to Walkerton. More tax cuts, the mortgage interest deductibility, which even

the right and left analysts say won't work and is not necessary, the money for private schools: all of those things will either put the public purse and the government in the hole -- they've got a

law they've already broken that says they can't do that. Then, with the combination of these things they're promising, should they be re-elected, it would lead to more massive service cuts; we

would see even more cuts at the Ministry of the Environment, in our health care system, in our schools etc. That's why it's not the Road Ahead; it's the road moving full circle, back to

Walkerton.

It's important that we have these opportunities to debate these kinds of bills today and throughout the next little while, unless the election is called.

Yesterday I reintroduced my Ontario Drinking Water Source Protection Act because the government has done nothing on that. They've done some consultations, but we still don't see anything. Justice

O'Connor made it very clear that that was the lynchpin, to make sure Ontario's drinking water is protected.

We have a Safe Drinking Water Act. I'll remind members of the House that I came forward with the original Safe Drinking Water Act right after the tragedy in

Walkerton and urged and urged, with the support of the Liberals, the government to pass that bill, and it never did. Eventually, after Justice O'Connor came out with his recommendations, they

passed one of their own, although it's very different, because there's nothing about source protection, which there was in my bill. Within their bill we're still left without that.

I want to remind the Legislature as well that I introduced yesterday, as well as the Ontario Drinking Water Source Protection Act --

Mr Gerretsen: Oh, talk about this bill.

Ms Churley: Well, it's related -- the No Hog Factories Act. What that does, because this relates again to protecting our water and keeping our

water clean, is it prohibits large hog farms, subject to the ability of the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make exemptions where it's appropriate to do so. Where I say it's appropriate to do so

in this bill is, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations exempting any person from complying with

section 2 if" -- and this is the key point -- "the Lieutenant Governor in Council

is satisfied that Ontario legislation is in force that protects sources of drinking water from contamination that may be caused by the factory hog farm."

We all know on all sides of this House the problems that are out there right now across the province, and in the Minister of Agriculture's own riding, Huron. I

get lots and lots of e-mails and letters from people all across the province saying there needs to be some legislation in place to curtail the growth of these huge pig farms in areas that are

environmentally sensitive.

Those are two bills that I know my Liberal friends, as I support the Liberal bill before us today, and I hope the government will support it -- these are

things, after what happened in Walkerton, we should all be working on together to try to put all these pieces of the puzzle together, and what we have before us today is indeed a piece of that

puzzle.

I listened to Mr Galt talk about why it wasn't necessary and his glib answer that, "We're doing everything. We're perfect. We've got it all under control.

Don't worry. We don't need your help." It's the same old stuff that we've been hearing over and over again.

In the few minutes I've got left, I'm going to remind the government and the public why we need to be passing such legislation.

As Justice O'Connor said, "A strong source protection program offers a wide variety of benefits. It lowers risk-cost effectively, because keeping contaminants

out of drinking water sources is an efficient way of keeping them out of the drinking water."

So the government should pass my source protection act now. It lays out the framework to do that. There's no need to wait.

But as we speak here today about the situation on the anniversary of Walkerton -- that's the third anniversary -- we have a situation where we have all kinds

of municipalities whose water systems are out of compliance. We have money that the government -- let's see; how much is it? In the 2002-03 budget, the government promised to spend $174 million on

water projects in Ontario, almost all of that badly needed money for municipal water projects. In the most recent budget, they admit that they only spent a third of that amount. They underspent by

$110 million on municipal water projects, at a time when we have boil-water orders all across this province.

Over the last two years, they failed to invest in the crumbling infrastructure in this province and failed to spend over $200 million on water. I fail to

understand how they can justify that when we know that there are many, many boil-water orders across this province as we speak.

I stand in support of this bill before us today. I would urge the government to also, as we're determining support for this bill, take a look at the two bills

that I brought forward yesterday. Of course, I reintroduced the source protection act. I introduced it in the last session, and it died on the order paper when the government prorogued the House. I

just brought forward the new piece of legislation on limiting big pig farms until a proper source protection act is in place. That's what I urge the government to do.

A report in September of last year, as I said, shows that over 40% of our municipal water systems are out of compliance. The government says that's down from

60% last year, and that they're doing well. It's still 40% out of compliance. We would all agree that that's not acceptable on this third anniversary of the Walkerton Inquiry.

I would urge the government members to support this bill today, and to, furthermore, agree to -- I'll be asking later for third reading on the two bills that I

presented yesterday, that also will go a long way toward protecting our drinking water in this province.

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): It's my pleasure to join in the debate today with regard to

an Act to amend the Ontario Resources Act

with respect to water source protection. Like my colleague, I share the member's belief in the need to protect the source waters that are so important to the people of Ontario.

Before I get into my prepared speech, I'd like to talk a bit about some of the things going on. As every day goes by, we're adding to our knowledge of source

water across this province. Yesterday's Sudbury Star reads:

"The Ministry of the Environment has commissioned a $1-million study of groundwater in five northern Ontario communities, including Markstay-Warren, just east

of Sudbury.

"The project involves the analysis of water sources and the integration of the results into a cohesive set of statistical and visual data. This includes both

technical reports and extensive mapping....

"This is just one of a series of projects that started in August of 2001. Five or six have been announced in the last month, and more are expected.

"These studies have been commissioned as part of Ontario's Operation Clean Water, part of the provincial government's plan for managing provincial

resources.

"At the end of the studies, there will be a comprehensive understanding of Ontario's aquifers....

"A benefit to residents is that the quantity and quality of their water can be gauged closely for years to come. This will allow communities to make more

informed decisions in municipal planning."

That's going on as we speak.

An April 14 announcement: "Thirty-two more Ontario communities will have better information to protect their drinking water resources thanks to the Ernie Eves

government's additional $5-million investment in local groundwater studies, Environment Minister Chris Stockwell announced....

"The grants for Ontario communities and conservation authorities build on the largest single investment in groundwater resources in the province's history.

Since 2000, the Ontario government has invested $19.3 million in local groundwater studies to help gather valuable information on the province's groundwater resources." So we're adding to our

knowledge of source waters all the time.

In my riding of Kearney, phase two of a project is underway studying the headwaters in the Magnetawan River system, right on the border of Algonquin Park. It's

certainly a critical study going on there. That project will assess the feasibility and means for protection of the surface and groundwater quality in the headwater areas of the Magnetawan River,

and flows to the Big East River, in support of environmentally sound growth and economical development. So as we speak, a lot is going on.

I'd like to speak for a second to the member of Toronto-Danforth talking about monies not flowing within the current budget year. I'd like to point out that

there are due processes that have to be followed. I'm sure she would be the first one to say we should follow the current environmental assessment process. I know I'm working with the many

municipalities in my riding as they work to improve their water systems day by day.

There was mention made by Mr Galt of the advisory committee report that came out April 21. The chair of that committee was Bill Calvert, a very competent chair

and the former CAO of the district of Muskoka. He was the chair of the advisory committee on watershed-based source protection.

Before discussing those actions, I want to give some background on the permits to take water program. I want to be very clear that through our permits to take

water program, the Ontario government has spared no effort to ensure that permits are subject to comprehensive review and strict controls. These controls include expiry periods and, where

appropriate, environmental monitoring. We have the Ontario low water response plan in place to deal with drought conditions in Ontario watersheds. As members of the House are aware, permits to take

water fall under the provisions of the Ontario Water Resource Act, the OWRA, and decisions on granting permits and the specific conditions to be imposed on permits are made on the basis of

sustainability. The goal is to ensure that new water-takings do not interfere with existing groundwater users or uses.

Another guiding concept is fair sharing of the resource. The OWRA and attendant regulations authorize a ministry director appointed under the legislation to

issue permits to proponents for most types of surface and groundwater takings for quantities over 50,000 litres per day. There are some exceptions to that rule.

I know I'm going to run out of time, so I'm going move on to talk about some announcements that came out on April 21, that I referred to earlier. Notice was

given of two key actions that we're taking to further strengthen our source water protection.

First, a six-month moratorium was announced on permits to take water in two of southern Ontario's most environmentally sensitive areas: the Oak Ridges moraine

and the Niagara Escarpment. The six-month moratorium took effect on March 1 of this year and is applicable for beverage manufacturing, including bottled water operations; fruit and vegetable

canning and pickling; ready-mix concrete manufacturing; and other manufacturing and production of goods that contain water that is taken under a permit to take water. The moratorium takes the

spirit of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2002, and the Niagara Escarpment Act a step further by protecting local resources over the short term while new initiatives are being

developed.

Second, along with the six-month moratorium, we announced the posting of amendments to regulation 285/99, the water-taking and transfer regulation, for public

comment. Generally speaking, the announcement increases the accountability of permit holders and those applying for permits, requiring the public sharing of information on both new and revised

permits.

In developing the amendments, we carefully reviewed recommendations from a number of key stakeholders, including the Association of Municipalities of Ontario,

the Environmental Commissioner and the Environmental Review Tribunal.

The amendments to the regulation will require permit applicants to notify municipalities, conservation authorities and adjacent landowners about proposed water

takings, require reporting of water use by permit holders, and define potential impacts that will be considered when reviewing permit applications.

The Ministry of the Environment will also consult on other program improvements that will establish a service cost recovery fee structure for permit

applications.

These proposed changes will ensure that Ontario continues to be among the leading jurisdictions in North America when it comes to the protection of the sources

of drinking water.

It is clear that the Ernie Eves government takes very seriously its responsibility to ensure that Ontario has, and enforces, the best drinking water protection

rules in the world. These rules include provisions to ensure that permits to take water are issued in such a way as to protect and ensure the sustainability of our precious water resources.

As I and my colleague indicated earlier, we are always open to any new ideas that will strengthen our safeguards. However,

An Act to amend the Ontario Water

Resources Act with respect to water source protection does not add anything to the process that we have in place. We do, however, appreciate the concerns of the member and I would invite her and

everyone with an interest in this issue to work with the government as we continue to build on the strength of Ontario's permit to take water program.

Mr Gerretsen: It's very disappointing to listen to the government members here today. Instead of talking about the private member's bill that

has been brought forward, which really wants to bring the highest standards to the drinking water situation here in Ontario, they talk about everything else.

The first point I want to make is, why don't you implement all of Justice O'Connor's recommendations with respect to Walkerton? The report's been out for more

than a year now. You know darned well you haven't implemented all of the recommendations yet. If you did, we'd go a long way to resolving the source water situation here in Ontario.

Secondly, if you really want to be proactive -- it's a very simple bill -- why don't you just give true meaning to the statement of environmental values that

the ministry has by putting it into legislation? You know darned well what happened with this Tay water situation up in the Perth area. There was a hearing before the Environmental Review Tribunal

-- I think it was a 30-day hearing -- and then after the hearing was done, the minister overturned the tribunal's decision because of new information the minister had. That new information, if

there really was any new information, surely should have gone back to the tribunal so the tribunal could make a decision taking all the information into account, including the so-called new

information. That's the real problem here.

I take the position that the water sources we have, the water we have in our streams and the underground sources, are a precious commodity and a resource that

belongs to each and every Ontarian, in exactly the same way that the coal that's underground and the forestry that's out there -- you know, we do things to protect those industries. Why don't we do

exactly the same thing with water? We should be even more vigilant with water since we all need it on a day-to-day basis for our ongoing existence.

The bill that the member proposes here is very simple. As I've already stated, one is to include the statement of environmental values as part of legislation.

Two, make sure that when notice of an application to take water out of our streams or out of our underground water system is given, municipalities and conservation authorities in those particular

areas be notified. They shouldn't be placed in the position where they in effect have to watch the Net on a day-to-day basis to see if an application has been made. What could be more reasonable

than that? Notify them and give them 30 days, as the member is suggesting in the legislation, to make a response to the ministry. That surely is the least we can expect in a situation like

this.

Also, make it mandatory that the director take the various pieces of information they get from the municipality and from the conservation authority into

account. You know as well as I do that currently the regulation states that the MOE director "may" ensure that government authorities are notified, and they "may" consult and they "may" take

whatever they say into consideration. Well, in today's world, that just isn't good enough. In light of what happened in Walkerton, it isn't good enough. It should be mandatory. Surely the drinking

water supply we have out there and the sources of our drinking water are so important to each and every one of us that we cannot just leave it to chance that maybe the right decision is made. It

should be made mandatory in legislation. That's what this bill speaks to.

We still haven't heard from any government member who claims that this government is doing more about our water situation -- the people out there know that

isn't the case -- about why you haven't endorsed and implemented all of Justice O'Connor's recommendations. I strongly suggest that if this House collectively wanted to send a message to the people

of Ontario that we really care about our water supply sources and we want to make sure that the water people drink on a day-to-day basis is as pure as it possibly can be, then the best thing we

could do is pass this bill unanimously on second reading today.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mrs Dombrowsky once again has brought forward a bill in this Legislature to deal with a situation that

cries out for a legislated solution, and once again I hear the government say that they believe that what they have in place will solve the problem. It reminds me of the launch of a certain

document last week, called The Road Ahead. I thought the term I heard on the news, The Road to Walkerton, was a better description of the launching of the new document, because the policies

contained in there will lead once again, if not in the drinking water situation then in some other circumstance in the province, to another Walkerton.

The member has brought forward a piece of legislation for a variety of reasons. People in her area and across the province have expressed astonishment that the

provincial government does not notify, is not obligated to notify, municipalities and other relevant agencies and people about permits to take water, oftentimes millions upon millions upon millions

of litres of water. Where there was a test of the government's will in this regard was certainly the OMYA situation in eastern Ontario. It even reached an environmental tribunal. I think Pauline

Browes was the chair of that tribunal. The discussion went on for several days; I heard there were 30 days of discussion and representations before the panel. A compelling case was made against the

request of the company for its water-taking permit, which would take a huge amount of water from its position in eastern Ontario, yet the Minister of the Environment, when push came to shove, came

down on the side of the company and not on the side of the environment. In fact, he overruled the environmental tribunal in this particular case, an independent environmental tribunal which had

heard all the compelling evidence. The minister decided in his great wisdom that he would overrule that. To me, that epitomizes this government's approach to the environment: when push comes to

shove, unless there is all kinds of public scrutiny and an outcry, this government will come down on the side of the anti-environment rather than the environment. That's most unfortunate.

The member calls for legislation. Why does she do that, instead of a regulation? The government says, "We have a regulation that will look after this."

Regulations are made behind closed doors by a limited number of people with a limited amount of input and can be changed by the government. We saw an example of this in the House yesterday, where

the government changed some of its regulations and sprang them on the House. The government can do that at any time. Surely every member of this Legislature -- except the cabinet itself -- would

want to see this provision enshrined in legislation. Why? First, it would have stronger force, and second, if the government wishes to change the provisions contained in the legislation, it must

come before the House and have it debated in the House. That is far superior, because we've had a very bad example of a minister who simply caved in, if I may use that terminology, to a company

that wanted to take millions upon millions of litres of water, and of course that was to be exported as part of a slurry.

The member, Mrs Dombrowsky, deserves credit for persistence because she has raised this issue in question period, in statements, in debates and during the time

devoted to private members' hour. She is to be commended for that. I see no reason why the government members would not vote for this, if this was not what we call a whipped vote, if this were

truly a free vote, as they claim.

This is the third anniversary of the Walkerton tragedy, that we're just about to pass. This is an example of how we have to deal with problems legislatively,

proactively and in a way that will protect the environment. Mrs Dombrowsky's legislation will do that. I'm pleased to support it and I urge other members to do the same.

The Acting Speaker: In response, the member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington.

Mrs Dombrowsky: I would like to thank the members who participated in the debate this morning on what I believe to be a very important issue:

the members for Northumberland, Prince Edward-Hastings, Toronto-Danforth, Parry Sound-Muskoka, Kingston and the Islands, and of course the member for St Catharines who has always so generously

participated in the debate on this issue.

I would also like to thank the people from across Ontario who have taken the time repeatedly to write to me to express their support for this legislation, not

just people from within my riding but from the ridings of Perth-Carleton, Barrie, Parry Sound, indeed from across Ontario. People are very concerned about their water sources and they want to

ensure they are protected. They want to ensure their Ministry of the Environment is definitely following its own rule, its statement of environmental values.

The government would offer this morning by way of argument that this is already happening, that this is going to be regulated, so it is unnecessary. I would

remind the members of the government that at the hearing around the OMYA issue in Perth, one of the arguments your lawyers put forward was that the Ministry of the Environment was not required to

consider the statement of environmental values because it was not legislated.

That is what the bill this morning is all about. We want to enshrine in legislation that commitment for the people of Ontario, for the most precious resource

we have -- apart from our children, of course -- our water. I thank all the members who have participated and I hope that you will be able, in a very non-partisan way, to support this solid piece

of legislation.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allocated for debate on ballot item 8. We will now deal with ballot item 7.

PEOPLE'S ACCESS

TO THE FACTS ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR L'ACCÈS

DU PUBLIC AUX FAITS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Wood has moved second reading of Bill 29,

An Act to amend the Public Inquiries Act.

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

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will have a bell following my placing the question on ballot item 8.

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES

AMENDMENT ACT

(WATER SOURCE PROTECTION), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RESSOURCES EN EAU

DE L'ONTARIO

(PROTECTION DES SOURCES D'ALIMENTATION EN EAU)

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mrs Dombrowsky has moved second reading of Bill 35,

An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act

with respect to water source protection.

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

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

Carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96, this bill will be referred to --

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): Mr Speaker, I would ask that this bill be referred to the committee on general

government.

The Acting Speaker: Mrs Dombrowsky has asked that the bill be referred to the standing committee on general government. Agreed?

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

Agreed.

PEOPLE'S ACCESS

TO THE FACTS ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR L'ACCÈS

DU PUBLIC AUX FAITS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1200 to 1205.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour will please stand and remain standing until their name is called by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Beaubien, Marcel

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Clark, Brad

Cleary, John C.

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

DeFaria, Carl

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Gravelle, Michael

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hastings, John

Johnson, Bert

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, AL

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Tascona, Joseph N.

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wood, Bob

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please stand and remain standing until their name is called by the Clerk.

Nays

Cunningham, Dianne

Kormos, Peter

Martin, Tony

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

Turnbull, David

Wilson, Jim

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 49; the nays are 7.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I'd like to thank the House for its support and ask that this be referred to the Legislative Assembly

committee.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Wood has asked that the bill be referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. Agreed?

All those in favour will please stand and remain standing.

All those opposed will please stand.

Mr Wood has asked that the bill be referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. The majority is in favour.

All business now being complete, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1209 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BSE

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): The outbreak of BSE is dealing a huge blow to the $1-billion-a-year Ontario beef industry. It's

incumbent on every one of us in this Legislature associated with this building, be we the politicians or the media, that we do everything we can to instill confidence in this industry, that it is

safe to eat beef. The experts out there are saying that it's safe to eat beef. We must ensure, though, that both levels of government continue to work together co-operatively to ensure that the

investigation continues and that we put everything in place to ensure that the outbreak does not occur in Ontario.

We must do everything we can. I urge the Minister of Agriculture to, if need be, go it alone, as she has said, to do everything possible to reopen the American

borders and the other exporting borders as well. Every day that we wait, our farmers are losing thousands and thousands of dollars.

We need the minister to please work as well with the rendering industry to ensure that their needs are being met as we work through this most difficult

situation.

Most importantly, it's not too early for the Minister of Agriculture to start putting the wheels in motion to deal with compensation measures that we know are

going to have to be undertaken.

We urge all Ontarians to choose beef as their meal choice. Fire up that barbecue and have a hamburg, have a steak, or try my favourite: Ontario corn-fed beef.

Please, beef -- it's what it's all about. Beef -- we need to do everything we can to support this industry. You can do that at home, ladies and gentlemen, by making sure that you go out to that

grocery store and buy some Ontario beef.

STAFF APPRECIATION

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Since 1995, it has certainly been my honour to serve the people of Scarborough East. Members on both

sides of this House work very hard to represent our communities. While we may be the public face of the provincial Legislature in our communities, our work could not be accomplished without a

dedicated team of staff and volunteers who work very hard every day on our behalf.

In the past eight years, my community office has assisted literally thousands of individuals resolve conflicts between governments at all levels. They've

helped people find jobs and training. They've assisted others with OSAP, Family Responsibility Office claims, WSIB claims, scrolls, and information on a wide variety of government programs. They

have done so professionally and effectively, and for this I am exceedingly grateful.

I'd like to thank my constituency team, including Karen Cain, who has been with me right since 1995, Nadia Mangal, Mary Semple, as well as staff such as Jack

Douglas, who are now retired but who gave yeoman service while in our office.

I would also like to thank our hard-working summer students and volunteers, who have played a major role in helping us provide the best quality service to the

residents of Scarborough East. They include Christina Serafico, Lisa Young, Scott Thompson and Karen Serafico.

I can't leave out the hard-working Queen's Park staff: Jenna Clark; my legislative intern, Graham Erion; and my EA, Paul Calandra, who has also been with me

since day one.

Before this session of Parliament ends, I want to offer my heartfelt thanks to the people who are truly the backbone of the political process, our Queen's Park

constituency staff.

DISTILLERY DISTRICT

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): Today marks an historic day in a riding that has been home to a lot of Ontario's history.

Later today, Cityscape Development will officially open the distillery district. This is the renovated former Gooderham and Worts Distillery in my riding near

Front and Parliament. The distillery district promises to be one of the great new hotbeds of exciting activity in the city of Toronto. Recently Artscape opened a bunch of studios down there for

artists. This is a renaissance that's bringing new life to one of the areas of our city long in need of it.

We have another historic opportunity for the Minister of Culture who's here with us today to play his role on behalf of the people of Ontario, and that is to

ensure that one of the most historic sites in Canada, the first Parliament site at Front and Parliament, is restored to public hands so that this site, which has been the birthplace of the history

of democracy in Upper Canada, can be used for the opportunity to tell us about our history and our heritage.

This past Saturday I joined with Councillor Pam McConnell and 300 or 400 other people, including mayoralty candidates Barbara Hall and John Tory, in lending

support to see that this historic site is returned to public hands.

There's a cultural argument, but there's an economic argument too. The province of Ontario owns about 100 acres of adjacent land. There is no better way to

ensure we get top dollar for that land and that we use it to its highest and best value than to take this historic site and make sure it underpins this distillery district that is coming to new

life at Front and Parliament. I call on the Minister of Culture to act today.

CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I rise to inform the House that last Monday, May 12, was the international day of recognition for

ME, also known as chronic fatigue syndrome. ME is a serious, debilitating, multi-system physical illness that affects individuals of all ages. Results of recent studies show that ME affects 522

women and 291 men for every 100,000 members of our population. The onset of the illness may be sudden, and while a few victims may be able to continue work or school, many are bedridden or require

mobility devices.

ME has a particularly negative impact on our children and youth. As with adults, children may experience neurological or cognitive difficulties, muscle

weakness, profound exhaustion and dysfunction of the immune system.

Despite ongoing worldwide research, the cause of ME remains unknown. Fortunately for sufferers of this debilitating disease, their cause is being well

represented by the volunteers at the ME association of Ontario. Founded in 1990, this non-profit organization is dedicated to providing education and information to those affected by ME.

I ask all honourable members to join me in applauding the efforts of the dedicated volunteers of the MEAO as they help raise awareness of ME.

Members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario wear a blue ribbon in support those afflicted by ME and in the hope that the hard work and vigilance of

volunteers and researchers will soon bring the incidence of ME to an end.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): My community of Sarnia-Lambton dutifully followed the provincial government's directive and amalgamated

our hospitals. What we have now, seven years later, is an inadequate facility containing insufficient beds and a depleted and demoralized workforce. We do not have enough beds to meet the needs of

our community, and we do not have enough nurses and health care professionals to manage the patients.

Not only is this hurting my community's ability to attract new doctors, but our best and our most experienced health care workers are leaving these inadequate

facilities to work in the United States or pursue other careers.

Dr Withers is a family physician in Sarnia. He points out that the current ER was meant only as a temporary structure and that now it is treating double the

patients it was designed to treat. Concerns over the working conditions, insufficient staffing and lack of available beds have driven away experienced emergency doctors and nurses to seek work

elsewhere.

If workplace conditions and deficient infrastructures are not addressed, the Minister of Health should understand that the reality is that we cannot resolve

the systemic shortage or keep pace with the exodus of health care professionals. As the MPP for Sarnia-Lambton, I want to make sure that the minister once again understands the urgent need in

Sarnia-Lambton for a new hospital.

SUDBURY REGIONAL HOSPITAL

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): For months now, phase 2 construction at the Sudbury Regional Hospital has been on hold. We've had an

operating review, a capital review, recommendations, a supervisor, more recommendations, but no money from this government to finish this capital project. Instead we've been told we'll have to

contribute even more to cover the local share of increased construction costs; this after the community has already fundraised more than we had to, in three years instead of five. Our community has

done enough. We've met our obligations and we shouldn't be forced to do more. Instead it's time the Conservatives put their money on the table to get this project done.

Our regional hospital has a responsibility to provide health care services to people right across northeastern Ontario. We can't do that, much less meet the

needs of local residents, when the wing for emergency services, for example, is still a huge hole in the ground.

The government doesn't understand that ongoing construction delays also put the northern medical school at risk. The media has already reported the opening

might be delayed until 2005, due to issues involving accreditation. What medical student will apply to Sudbury if the future of the teaching hospital is in limbo? Who will come to teach if it's not

clear the hospital will be done on time? We can't recruit if we can't guarantee the project will be done, and done on time. The government must announce money now so that the northern medical

school is not compromised in this way.

Sudbury says, "Finish our hospital." That is what the Conservative government should do right now.

STRATFORD FESTIVAL

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I rise today to inform my colleagues and all Ontarians that the Stratford Festival will celebrate the

opening night of its 51st season this coming Monday, May 26, 2003.

This year's program includes Greek classics like Agamemnon and The Birds, modern Canadian works like the 1983 Governor General's Award winner Quiet in the Land

by Anne Chislett, musicals like Rodgers' and Hammerstein's The King and I, and of course Shakespearean plays including Antony and Cleopatra and The Taming of the Shrew, which will be featured at

Monday's opening night performance.

Interjection.

Mr Johnson: At this time I would like to recognize Richard Monette, the festival's artistic director since 1994, which might be of interest to

the member for Windsor. Mr Monette, who has been with the festival in various roles for 31 years, recently agreed to continue as artistic director until 2007. This will make him the longest-serving

artistic director in the festival's history. His continued devotion to the Stratford Festival has contributed greatly to its success.

Interjection.

Mr Johnson: I'd ask again if the member for Windsor would give me a little courtesy.

Talk about success: this year the festival will feature 23 plays in four venues. It creates almost 6,000 jobs in and around Stratford and accounts for 150,000

room nights in local hotels and bed and breakfasts. The estimated economic impact on the region is $170 million.

I am looking forward to Monday's performance. I hope that all members of this House will visit Stratford this summer to see a play, eat especially good

Canadian beef in one of the many fine restaurants and roam through the shops on the main street, which is Ontario Street in Stratford.

DAIMLERCHRYSLER

Ms Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): We've had extremely disappointing news today that DaimlerChrysler will not go ahead with a $1.6-billion

investment in my city to build a truck plant. The company was negotiating since last fall with federal and provincial governments to come up with a package that would at least assist in making the

business case to build the plant.

DaimlerChrysler is being just too generous in citing the softening market as the only reason not to go ahead with this project. Having been kept abreast of

information of the negotiations all along, it's been embarrassing to see the attitude of ministry officials in the just-don't-bother-me mood and months of delay in offering a package to

DaimlerChrysler. As it was told to me, "The treatment from the government negotiating team was atrocious."

We have a minister responsible for innovation. Well, the flexible manufacturing facility proposed for Windsor is ideal for future production; it's the

innovative approach to manufacturing that would also improve and modernize parts manufacturing.

Ontario ministries should have been leaping all over the potential for a new assembly plant, which rarely comes along these days. Instead this government

practically chased them out the door. You need to be in the incentives game, which has wholly benefited southern states. I don't feel this government understands the lost jobs we are now facing --

jobs that start at $18 or more an hour. Our auto sector accounts for one in four jobs in my city; one in six jobs in this province. In a Liberal government under Dalton McGuinty, we'll lead an

automotive investment SWAT team to get out there and look for new investment, not sit on our hands like this government has done.

DON YOUNG

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I have a very moving story to relate about a young, 31-year-old man from Ennismore in my riding. On July 29

last year a gravel crusher destroyed Don Young's legs. During the ambulance ride to Sunnybrook Hospital and the ensuing days of numerous surgeries, Don received 30 pints of blood. Miraculously,

within six months he has learned to walk again and has now returned to work.

Don received an outpouring of support and encouragement from residents in the Peterborough riding. He realized that the availability of blood saved his life.

He wanted to do something to show his appreciation. With his wife Stephanie and 15-month-old daughter Siera, the young family decided to host a special blood donors' clinic. The goal was to double

the 30 pints of blood that Don received during his ordeal.

The Youngs were overwhelmed by the response to the clinic. Not only did they double the 30 pints; they exceeded it by 171 pints. Two hundred and seventy-seven

people, 184 of them first-time donors, attended the clinic. Those who were not able to attend the clinic hosted by the Youngs are donating blood at Canadian Blood Services. At the last report, 280

had been donated.

Don owes his life to the people who gave blood at regular clinics. By sharing his story he encourages more people to see the value of donating blood. When Don

is asked about his handicap, he responds, "I guess you're as handicapped as you feel." This young man and his family deserve to be applauded for their positive outlook and courage in overcoming a

catastrophic incident by giving back to their community and for making people aware that they were given blood to save their lives.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

THE RIGHT CHOICES ACT

(BUDGET MEASURES), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003

SUR LES BONS CHOIX

(MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES)

Mrs Ecker moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 41,

An Act to implement Budget measures / Projet de loi 41, Loi mettant en oeuvre les mesures budgétaires.

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

All those in favour will please say, "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1348 to 1353.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Clark, Brad

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, AL

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Di Cocco, Caroline

Duncan, Dwight

Gravelle, Michael

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McLeod, Lyn

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 45; the nays are 27.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

STUDENT HEALTH AND SAFETY

PROGRAMS ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LES PROGRAMMES

DE SANTÉ ET DE SÉCURITÉ

POUR ÉTUDIANTS

Mr Gravelle moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 42,

An Act to bring health and safety programs to Ontario students / Projet de loi 42, Loi visant à offrir des programmes de santé et de

sécurité aux étudiants de l'Ontario.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): The purpose of this legislation is to equip Ontario's students entering the workforce with

the skills and knowledge they need to prevent injuries, fatalities and occupational disease in the workplace. We need this legislation because young workers are at a much higher risk of a workplace

accident or disease than other workers. In fact, their chance of sustaining an injury at work is 80% higher than the average worker's. Nobody feels more strongly about this than the Thunder Bay

Injured Workers' Support Group. This in fact is their legislation -- legislation, may I say, that I have introduced before. I hope we'll be succ