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

June 26, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-Jun-26 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 26 June 2001 Mardi 26 juin 2001

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION FUNDING

PAPAL VISIT TO UKRAINE

REMARKS BY MAYOR LASTMAN

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

ERMELINDO AGOSTINI

CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

SCHOOL BUS OPERATORS

BY-ELECTION

IN VAUGHAN-KING-AURORA

EVENTS IN HALDIMAND-

NORFOLK-BRANT

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE

OF THE INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WASTE DIVERSION ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LE

RÉACHEMINEMENT DES DÉCHETS

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT

(INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION TAX CREDIT), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LA LOI DE L'IMPÔT SUR LE REVENU

(CRÉDIT D'IMPÔT AU

TITRE

DE L'ADOPTION INTERNATIONALE)

SIOUX LOOKOUT MENO-YA-WIN

HEALTH CENTRE ACT, 2001

MOTORCYCLE AWARENESS WEEK

ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA SEMAINE

DE SENSIBILISATION À LA MOTOCYCLETTE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

VISITORS

DEFERRED VOTES

PUBLIC SERVICE STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT

À LA FONCTION PUBLIQUE

GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'EFFICIENCE

DU GOUVERNEMENT

APPOINTMENT OF INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

ORAL QUESTIONS

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

EDUCATION FUNDING

WASTE MANAGEMENT

HOSPITAL FUNDING

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

FAMILY HEALTH NETWORKS

DIALYSIS

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

FIRST NATIONS

HOME CARE

CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

HOME CARE

Tuesday 26 June 2001 Mardi 26 juin 2001

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Last night the Ottawa public school board made a very brave decision to reject this government's funding

formula, to reject the defunding of education, the same defunding which has taken over $1,000 per student away from this board since 1997. Last Friday, and then again at 1:30 this morning, the

board voted to reject its own amended budget because of the fiscal straitjacket in which it has been placed by this government. The board chair has been directed to write to the Minister of

Education and explain the circumstances of the board's decision and invite her to Ottawa to investigate, something I've requested of the minister many times.

By doing what you're doing, Minister, you have placed school boards like Ottawa, Hamilton, Toronto, Sudbury and Windsor -- where we had a rebellion last year --

in the position where they are now forced to break your own imposed balanced-budget law. In other words, this government has taken significant amounts of money out of the system by using a tricky

funding formula. Then you turn around and ask those who have been defunded to keep the system stable and balanced. To that, they have said a resounding no.

I believe this is just the beginning of a trend where school boards and Ontarians in general are saying to this government that enough is enough. I take this

opportunity to advise the Minister of Education that other school boards, likewise in defence of education and students and their learning and special education, need to be supported in their

pursuit of learning.

PAPAL VISIT TO UKRAINE

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): This week, Pope John Paul II is in Ukraine. Tomorrow the Pope will bestow sainthood on a

number of Ukrainian martyrs.

Among these are two Ukrainian Canadians. Bishop Nikita Budka was the first Ukrainian Catholic bishop in Canada whose early work and struggles laid the foundation

for the church in the prairies and throughout Canada. Upon his return home, the bishop was arrested by the communists and sent to Siberia, where he was martyred outside his camp in 1953. Bishop

Basil Velichkovsky was a missionary sentenced to Siberia, from where he was released in 1972. Before his release, his captors injected him with a slow-acting poison that eventually killed him

during his visit to Canada, in Winnipeg, where he is buried.

These two heroic individuals represent Canada's first saints of its multicultural community. Their public recognition is also an acknowledgement of the many

ongoing contributions to this province and country of Canadians of Ukrainian and many other origins.

On behalf of all members of this House, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the members of our Ukrainian-Canadian community on this most happy

occasion. It is an event which Canadians of all backgrounds can be very proud of.

REMARKS BY MAYOR LASTMAN

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): In expressing my concern, let me state how deeply hurt and disturbed I am by the mayor's racist

remarks made in Barcelona. The remarks fly in the face of what we stand for in Canada. They insult the people of Mombassa, Kenya, and also go against the principles of the Canadian Charter of

Rights, which secures the rights of all to live in this country without fear of discrimination and hatred.

Similarly, the Ontario Human Rights Code gives protection to each and every Ontarian, and the right to be free from discrimination in all forms, including racial

slurs. The city of Toronto has also been active in the fight against racism. Visible signs with the city's logo at bus stops and subways state, "Hate: It's taught." I hope the mayor would be

committed to this cause. The cavalier attitude and the frivolous manner in which he has behaved tell a different story. Words are a prelude to deeds. The mayor's remarks are an affront to all those

fighting racism and prove that he has not come to understand the severity of his actions. He has hurt millions of people. He has inflicted damage on the city, the province and our country. His act

feeds into the bigotry that already exists in our society. These actions represent "the banality of evil." It is a deplorable act.

We cannot tolerate such behaviour. We must be vigilant in our efforts to stamp out racism in whatever form it is dressed. Charters, codes, signs are not

sufficient in this battle unless we are prepared to identify the causes and act upon them.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Two days ago, during question period, I raised the plight of Community Care Access Centre Niagara. The Harris

government has defunded CCAC Niagara to the tune of in excess of $9 million. The net result is that people are going to be laid off from this CCAC; that seniors are not going to receive baths; that

seniors aren't going to be fed, literally; that seniors are going to be forced to sit in their own waste while they're waiting for the reduced level of services that CCAC Niagara is forced to

impose as a result of this government's defunding of Community Care Access Centre Niagara.

This government has got to understand that these are senior citizens, along with post-operative patients, who are trying to live in their homes. They can only do

so with the assistance provided by those nursing staff and others through the CCACs. It's far less expensive to fund a CCAC home care program than it is to put a senior citizen into an institution,

and, quite frankly, the senior citizen enjoys that dignity of life in their own home that is not going to be available to them in Mike Harris's seniors' homes.

We call upon this government to address the defunding of CCAC Niagara and similar CCACs across Niagara. Our parents and our grandparents deserve far more than

what Mike Harris is delivering to them. They aren't blessed by being in Mike Harris's Ontario; they're cursed by being in Mike Harris's Ontario.

ERMELINDO AGOSTINI

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): My member's statement is about a York region resident's proven historic actions on the road. His name is Mr

Ermelindo Agostini. He has spent 18 years of his life driving a truck and has seen the devastating toll highway vehicle accidents can take.

However, when the unfortunate time came for Mr Agostini to be involved in an accident on Highway 407, his quick thinking, swift reflexes and heroic actions

helped save the lives of the Collettes, a family from New Brunswick visiting Ontario on vacation. Mr Agostini saw that the vacationing family's car had caught on fire. He quickly jumped from his

truck and pulled both children from the car's back seat before it was engulfed in flames. I'm happy to let you know that because of Mr Agostini's brave actions, all parties involved in the accident

escaped with only minor scrapes and bruises. While Mr Agostini will be the first to tell you that his actions were far from being heroic, if it were not for his bravery, the accident could have

been far worse.

While traffic accidents are an unfortunate part of life, it makes me proud when out of such a disastrous event, the bravery and heroic actions of the affected

parties have helped to save such precious lives. I ask the members of this House to join me in congratulating Ermelindo Agostini for his heroism.

CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): On a day when members will be asked to vote on public funds to private schools, I rise today to make

members aware of a vital feature of Ontario's education system for which we in this House have a special obligation. I refer to our children with special needs.

Our obligation as elected officials is to ensure they receive the same dignity and respect and chance to learn as other kids. These are kids with frail health,

with attention deficit disorders, with other challenges that every parent in this House can relate to the immensity of. But they can learn and they belong in our classrooms. They can't learn when

the basic assistance they require for a level playing field is taken away.

Today in the gallery are parents of children who have lost or are threatened with the loss of that opportunity. Their kids will not be in school next year,

thanks to the cuts of this government, unless something is made to change.

There's Linda Carey from Hamilton on behalf of Emily; Karen Dunbar from Hamilton; Donna Cooper from Kawartha on behalf of Steven; Wendy Johansen, Kathy

Payne-Mercer and Mark Jeppeson. They are being turned down by this government. They are caught in budget cuts and lost in a demeaning avalanche of paper by a government that won't trust the

teachers and the parents to do the best for their kids.

I enjoin any member of this House who has doubts about their needs to come to the estimates committee this afternoon, where the Minister of Education will be

asked to be brought to account. I would ask every member to look carefully at the answers of the Minister of Education to say why the needs of these kids, of these parents' children, should be put

ahead of putting public funds into private schools.

SCHOOL BUS OPERATORS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the Legislature today to speak about a transportation problem that many schoolchildren in my Durham riding,

as well as those in the ridings of Northumberland and Peterborough, could be facing this coming September.

The familiar sight of school buses delivering children safely to and from school becomes less viable if school bus funding difficulties are not resolved. Despite

the fact that the Ministry of Education has provided the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board with interim relief for busing amounting to $726,000 last year as well as $4 million in flexible

funding this school year, the drivers in the Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board will continue to be the lowest paid in the GTA.

This week my colleagues and I met with local school bus operators like Archie Groth and Ron Gerow, who is the co-chair of the Kawartha Pine Ridge Separate School

Bus Association, along with Rick Donaldson as well as drivers and representatives from both school boards.

I think we all agree that making sure our children have a safe means of transportation is an important element of our education system. Many often take this

service for granted, not thinking of the costs involved for the drivers. In addition to high gas prices, repair costs and emissions testing, the drivers who work for those boards have not had a pay

increase in nine years.

I am committed to working with the school bus operators and drivers from my riding of Durham, like Tammy Jones, and with representatives from the Ministry, Nancy

Naylor, and the school board, Bob Allison.

There needs to be a comprehensive agreement between coterminous boards to really address the efficiencies in the system and the safety of our children.

BY-ELECTION

IN VAUGHAN-KING-AURORA

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On February 20 of this year I wrote to Mr John Hollins, the chief electoral officer of Ontario, as

follows:

"With the writ having now been issued for the by-election in the provincial constituency of Parry Sound-Muskoka, I am writing to request that you, in your

capacity of chief election officer, closely monitor print and electronic media outlets for any partisan political advertising by the government of Ontario intended to influence the outcome of this

by-election using taxpayers' dollars.

"As I know you are aware, there are strict limitations placed upon the expenditure of funds by political parties and clearly defined `blackout periods' during

which advertising is forbidden in either general elections or by-elections. This practice was established in the interest of fairness and is intended to restrict the ability of a political party to

`buy' an election by spending excessive amounts of money during a campaign.

"During its tenure, the Harris government has now squandered approximately $200 million on blatantly partisan political advertising in the form of television and

radio campaigns and on glossy brochures mailed to every household in the province. This unfair and costly practice continued during last year's by-election in Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot

even after I requested that your predecessor intervene and order the government to immediately end their advertising blitz.

"Since last year's by-election, the Harris government has demonstrated continued zeal in their use of partisan political advertising, even going so far as to use

what are supposed to be non-partisan government of Ontario Web sites as vehicles to disseminate politically partisan views."

Obviously, the government ignored this particular avenue on my part, because in the Parry Sound by-election, they had ads in the newspaper on election day. Now

in Vaughan-King-Aurora -- and I have not had the full time -- the government is running ads once again, is cheating in this election campaign.

EVENTS IN HALDIMAND-

NORFOLK-BRANT

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): The evening of June 9 was an exciting one for residents of my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, most

specifically in Norfolk county. June 9 marked the final game of the Stanley Cup playoffs as the Colorado Avalanche defeated the New Jersey Devils, 3-1.

Simcoe area native Rob Blake was the third Avalanche player to hoist the cup over his head on June 9, and then he told CBC reporter Ron MacLean that he couldn't

wait to bring the cup to Simcoe. Keeping his promise, Rob will arrive in Simcoe July 14 along with the Stanley Cup.

Every little hockey player dreams of the day of being able to take the Stanley Cup to their hometown, and very few earn the opportunity to do so in their

career.

I'd also like to add that this talented young man is my first cousin. Although still young, Robbie Blake has already been an Olympian and has won a world

championship and now the Stanley Cup.

Championship hockey players are not unique in my riding. Locals Red Kelly, Rick Wamsley and Chico Maki have also had their names engraved on the cup, but they've

never had the chance to parade it around our home area.

Although I look forward to viewing the Stanley Cup up close, I'm sure the most memorable part of July 14 will be to witness the pride not only on Rob's face, but

also on the faces of his parents, Bob and Sandy, and also on the faces of area fans.

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE

OF THE INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that today I have laid upon the table the annual report of the office of the Integrity

Commissioner for the period of April 1, 2000, to March 31, 2001.

I further beg to inform the House that today I have laid upon the table the second annual report of the lobbyists' registration office, office of the Integrity

Commissioner, with respect to the administration of the Lobbyists Registration Act, 1998, for the period of April 1, 2000, to March 31, 2001.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on general government and move its

adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee recommends that Bill 27,

An Act to protect the families of police officers and others

involved in the criminal justice system / Projet de loi 27, Loi visant à protéger les familles des agents de police et d'autres personnes oeuvrant dans le système de justice

criminelle, be not reported.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on justice and social policy and move its

adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 12,

An Act to increase the safety of equestrian riders / Projet de loi 12, Loi visant à accroître la sécurité des cavaliers.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed. The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WASTE DIVERSION ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LE

RÉACHEMINEMENT DES DÉCHETS

Mrs Witmer moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 90,

An Act to promote the reduction, reuse and recycling of waste / Projet de loi 90, Loi visant à promouvoir la réduction, la réutilisation

et le recyclage des déchets.

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

The minister for a short statement?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of the Environment): It is my pleasure to introduce the Waste Diversion Act for first reading. This important

piece of legisation would establish a permanent, non-profit organization run by industry and municipal represenatives to develop, implement and fund waste diversion programs in Ontario. This

legislation firmly establishes a partnership between industry and the municipalities and lays out the framework for a recycling system that will serve this province for years to come.

It will require the WDO to develop initiatives for used oil, organics such as kitchen waste, household special waste like paints and solvents, scrap tires and

other materials. It will build on the blue box and it will be funded 50-50 by industry and municipalities.

I urge support of this very significant piece of legislation.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT

(INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION TAX CREDIT), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LA LOI DE L'IMPÔT SUR LE REVENU

(CRÉDIT D'IMPÔT AU

TITRE

DE L'ADOPTION INTERNATIONALE)

Mr Cordiano moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 91,

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act and the Intercountry Adoption Act, 1998 / Projet de loi 91, Loi modifiant la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu et

la Loi de 1998 sur l'adoption internationale.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Joseph Cordiano (York South-Weston): Before I speak to the bill, I would like to recognize the presence of two very special people, my two

daughters, Lara and Natalie Cordiano, who are here with us today. Thank you.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I remember when they were born.

Mr Cordiano: I had no grey hair then.

Mr Speaker, the amendments in this bill provide tax relief for families being charged intercountry adoption fees. The bill ensures fair and equitable treatment

of all adoptions, regardless of a child's place of birth.

I would also ask for unanimous consent to have this bill immediately ordered for second and third readings.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

SIOUX LOOKOUT MENO-YA-WIN

HEALTH CENTRE ACT, 2001

Mr Hampton moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr15,

An Act to establish the Sioux Lookout Meno-Ya-Win Health Centre.

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

Pursuant to standing order 86(a), this bill stands referred to the Commissioners of Estate Bills.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wouldn't mind making a brief statement on the bill.

The Speaker: You can't on a private bill. I'm sorry. It's a private bill.

MOTORCYCLE AWARENESS WEEK

ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA SEMAINE

DE SENSIBILISATION À LA MOTOCYCLETTE

Mr Stewart moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 92,

An Act to designate Motorcycle Awareness Week / Projet de loi 92, Loi désignant la Semaine de sensibilisation à la motocyclette.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): The bill designates the week beginning on the first Monday in May of each year as Motorcycle Awareness

Week. I believe the motorcycle is a very important part of recreation and transportation in Canada. There are some 95,000 officially licensed motorcycles for road use.

In the interests of safety -- and I want to emphasize that -- it is necessary to develop skills and awareness of proper habits to handle motorcycles on

Ontario's highways. It is most important for the citizens of Ontario to be aware of motorcycles on highways and the vulnerability of motorcyclists, and to recognize the importance of sharing the

roadway.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): On April 19, we outlined to this Legislature our plan to protect jobs, to keep families financially secure

and to maintain the strength of all communities.

Our 21-step plan to move Ontario into the 21st century is bold, it is clear, and it is measurable. Our plan has three priorities: growth, fiscal responsibility

and accountbility. It contains the new ideas and decisive steps that are needed to strengthen the economy and protect the high quality of life the people of Ontario expect and indeed deserve.

I am proud to announce that we have taken action on each of the 21 steps, and we will continue to take action in the days and months ahead to help improve the

lives of the people of Ontario even more.

This spring, for the third year in a row, we presented a balanced budget, and we took action on step 2 of our fiscally responsible plan and we paid $3 billion

toward the provincial debt, the largest reduction in our province's history.

We have always believed that Ontario taxpayers deserve to keep more of their hard-earned money. Since 1995 we've cut personal income tax rates by more than

30%. A typical Ontario family with a total income of $60,000 will have close to $2,000 more to spend, save or invest as they see fit than they would have had without our tax cuts. We're not

stopping there. We've introduced legislation that would complete our additional 20% tax cut to personal income taxes by the year 2003. We also announced a full range of corporate income tax cuts

that by 2005 would make Ontario's general combined corporate income tax rate lower --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Sorry to interrupt the Premier. The member for Windsor-St Clair, come to order, please. Sorry for the

interruption, Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

We also announced, as I was saying, a full range of corporate income tax cuts that by 2005 would make Ontario's general combined corporate income tax rate

lower than any of the US states.

Last year more than 80 cents of every dollar the government spent on programs and capital went to the broader public sector. Hospitals, school boards,

municipalities, social service agencies, colleges and universities must be accountable to the taxpayers of Ontario.

This is step 8 of our accountability-based plan. On May 9 we introduced the Public Sector Accountability Act to improve accountability across the whole sector.

Tax dollars must be used efficiently in areas where government should be involved, areas, for example, like health care or education, but tax dollars should not be used at all in areas that are

better left to the private sector, like banking. So as a first step in our review of the appropriate role of government, we are selling the Province of Ontario Savings Office, and to improve

customer service for Ontario drivers we have proposed that driver testing be transferred to the private sector as well.

One of the government's most important roles is to ensure that tax dollars are invested wisely. We must also strengthen the economy and we must attract jobs

and investments. This is the only way we will achieve the ambitious goal we set for our province in our 21-step action plan.

Our goal is that Ontario will enjoy not only the best performing economy, but also the highest quality of life in North America within 10 years. A high quality

of life means more than economic success. Our vision for Smart Growth recognizes that a high quality of life also means giving people choices about how and where to live.

Ours is a vision that promotes and manages growth to sustain a strong economy, strong communities and a healthy environment. As part of the Smart Growth step

of our plan, we have frozen development on the Oak Ridges moraine for six months while a longer-term action plan is developed.

On May 17 we also introduced legislation to promote the cleanup and revitalization of contaminated sites known as brownfields, and on June 13 we introduced

legislation that outlines better farming practices to protect Ontario's supply of clean drinking water. As well as using land wisely and protecting natural resources --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock, please. Order. I need to be able to hear.

Sorry for the interruption again, Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

As well as using land wisely and protecting natural resources, including our water, we must ensure Ontario is ready to compete and we must ensure we're ready

to win in this 21st century.

A modern transportation system is an important part of our pro-growth plan. We're hiring an independent financial adviser to help with the planned extension of

Highway 407 east to Highways 35 and 115. We're reducing delays at the Windsor-Detroit border with the help of federal and US partners. Yesterday we announced the next step toward a highway for the

Niagara region.

There are approximately 850,000 children in Ontario aged 6 and under, and they are at a critical point in their development. On May 10 we announced we will

invest $30 million this year to create Ontario early years centres that will support parents in their critical role and help them get their children off to the best possible start in life.

As these children grow, they will need access to a quality education, step 11 of our plan. Later this week, we hope to vote on our Stability and Excellence in

Education Act that would minimize labour disruptions in our schools, provide for the restoration of co-instructional activities and implement the next steps in our teacher testing program to begin

this fall.

Our government has done its part to end the disputes that rob children of a full educational experience. Now we're asking the unions to do the same, to work

with us and to put our children first.

On June 21 we took action on step 19 of our plan. We introduced legislation that would rescue children from prostitution and other forms of sexual

exploitation. It would give police and children's aid society workers greater power to help these children. It would allow the province to sue people who profit from the sexual exploitation of

children and recover the cost of treatment and services required by victims. It would make it easier to gain access to businesses where these children are being victimized and to remove children

under the age of 18.

As well as protecting children, we have taken action to make all neighbourhoods safer. We are keeping tighter controls on inmates through the introduction of

our Victim Empowerment Act. This legislation would also let victims participate in the parole hearings of those who have wronged them. We have improved services to victims of crime across the

province. On June 11 we created Canada's first permanent Office for Victims of Crime. On July 16 new legislation will take effect to protect law-abiding tenants and make it easier for landlords to

evict tenants who have been convicted of dealing drugs.

More than 586,000 people have escaped the welfare trap since 1995. Their success makes me and our party and everybody on this side of the House very proud. But

there are still too many people relying on the system. We're determined to do everything we can to help them get their lives back on track.

As we promised in step 18, we'll begin phasing in mandatory literacy testing and training for all Ontario Works participants on October 1. We're also

introducing mandatory drug treatment so that even more welfare recipients can find the dignity that comes with a job. Our welfare reforms are working. Over the last year, we created more than

69,600 Ontario Works placements, doubling last year's achievement.

In addition to the actions I have just described, we have also kept another promise made in our 21-step action plan. We have both invested in our province's

health care system and we've taken a leadership role on the sustainability of our nation's health care system. We've invested in Ontario's health care system at record levels and taken action to

ensure all families have access to professional medical care that they need closer to home. So far this year, for example, Telehealth Ontario has received more than 115,000 calls from people

needing medical advice and information. On July 3, residents of Huronia, Simcoe, Muskoka and Kawartha will also have full access to this important service.

On May 17, we announced we're expanding medical school enrolment by 30%. On June 14, we announced we're more than doubling the number of foreign doctors being

assessed and trained each year to practise here in Ontario. Also on May 17, we announced the location of a northern medical school, the first new medical school in Ontario in 30 years.

Health care costs are skyrocketing, and our government, like those in all other provinces, cannot in future years sustain current levels of growth on our own.

The federal government currently pays less than 14 cents of every dollar that we spend on Ontario's health care system. Today we again call on the federal government to pay its fair share.

Growth, fiscal responsibility and accountability: these are the priorities that will continue to guide our work in the days and the weeks and the months ahead

as we move forward with our 21-step action plan, because today's constantly changing global economy doesn't break for the summer, and neither does our government's responsibility to the people of

Ontario.

In the near future, we'll announce the members of the new independent task force, led by Roger Martin, to measure and monitor Ontario's productivity, our

competitiveness and our economic progress compared to the other provinces and to the United States. Over the summer, members of the public will also have the opportunity to comment on our No More

Free Ride for Young Offenders Act. It contains 100 amendments to Ottawa's inadequate Youth Criminal Justice Act, including insisting on adult time for an adult crime, mandatory jail time for

weapons offences and public identification of young offenders who are found guilty of a serious offence or who receive an adult sentence.

Also this summer, we'll expand our Drive Clean program. After only two years, Ontario's Drive Clean has cut smog-causing emissions from cars by 11.5% in the

Toronto and Hamilton areas. This is a very important achievement, but as we all know, we must and we can do better.

On education, we'll be working over the summer to prepare for another initiative that will help increase accountability and help improve the system. Starting

November 1, our new parent surveys will make it easier for parents to tell us what they do and what they do not like about the education system.

Our 21-step plan is an ambitious one. It's an ambitious plan with ambitious goals. But the hard-working people of Ontario deserve our best ideas and they

deserve our very best efforts. By making tough choices, by staying focused on our priorities -- growth, fiscal responsibility and accountability -- we will help Ontario meet the challenges of the

21st century and we will help offer people in every corner of our province the promise of a better life.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I can tell you that we on this side of the House have spent this session fighting on behalf of

Ontario's working families. We've been fighting for their access to quality health care; we've been fighting to improve their children's public education; and we've been fighting to ensure that

they can enjoy clean air and safe drinking water. I am proud to say we are fighting for our working families. This government has been doing the exact opposite. The government has spent this

session fighting with working families.

When our seniors told this government that they can't get home care, that they can't find long-term-care beds in their communities, that they can't get the

community care they need and deserve and, frankly, that they have earned, Mike Harris told them that they should thank God for what they're getting. The Minister of Health said that they should be

grateful because they are the wealthiest generation in the history of the world, when we know that one half of Ontario's seniors make less than $16,000 a year. In fact, the Premier and the health

minister went even further. They threatened to take somehing away from our seniors. They threatened to take away their drug coverage. We've been fighting for seniors. We've been fighting for our

parents and grandparents. This government has been fighting with them.

When parents and students told this government that public education is in a crisis, that classes are too large and textbooks are too scarce, that special

education can't be found and that morale is at an all-time low, Mike Harris turned around and he came up with $500 million for private schools. This was a huge reversal for this government, which

had already told the world, literally, at the United Nations that such a move would destroy public education. The government's budget slammed the government's own policy into reverse so suddenly

that we've heard the gears grinding for six weeks now.

We on this side of the House, on behalf of working families, fought for their public education. Our families' children deserve better. They deserve real reform

and real improvement. We're for choice within the public system; we're for smaller class sizes so our kids get more individual attention; we're for turnaround teams so that we can lend a hand to

our struggling schools; and we're for lighthouse schools that can better share our best practices and some of the good things that are happening inside public education. We've been fighting for

parents and students. This government continues to fight with them.

When it comes to the environment, on behalf of working families we have fought for clean air and safe drinking water. The government, on the other hand, has

fought with anyone who wants to clean things up. It sides with polluters, not working families. When we proposed converting Nanticoke to cleaner-burning natural gas, for example, the government

said that it preferred smog days to smog abatement. When we urged the government to accept responsibility for our drinking water, this government preferred to pass the buck. Just yesterday, the

medical officer of health for the province told the world: "The Premier was warned," he said, "and he turned his back on public safety."

When we brought forward important legislation to close the Keele Valley dump, the government broke its promise, and said, "No." It will be interesting to see

just how quickly the government's freeze on development on the Oak Ridges moraine survives Thursday's by-election. We suspect that the freeze is already beginning to thaw.

I can tell you that we have fought on behalf of working families who want a clean environment. This government on the other side has continued to look after

its friends. We have fought on behalf of working families for prosperity that lasts, that's built on quality education, accessible health care and taxes that are competitive. This government would

jeopardize our families' future and our province's future with its one-trick-pony approach that suggests that all we need is the lowest corporate taxes and what the heck if that means for our

families the lowest standards for health care, the lowest standards for education and the lowest levels of environmental protection.

This session may be winding down, but I can tell you we are just warming up and we will continue to fight for our working families and everything that they

need.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): It is interesting, to say the least, that the Premier starts off his statement and ends his statement

with the one-word, one-line message: tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. It is equally interesting that through the Premier's whole statement he makes not one word of mention of something called the

Walkerton inquiry -- Walkerton, where his government cut over $200 million from the budget of the Ministry of the Environment, laid off the inspectors, did away with government testing of drinking

water, and as a result seven people died and 2,000 people were rendered seriously ill. The Premier talks about accountability. I wonder who will be held accountable for the deaths of those seven

people and the illnesses of 2,000 more while your government took the money away from the Ministry of the Environment and turned it into tax cuts for your well-off friends. That's the

accountability we are interested in.

We're interested in the accountability that will finally happen for the death of an unarmed man, Dudley George, and how it is that you, Premier -- and this is

documented now -- could say, "Get the Indians out of the park," and a short while later an unarmed man lies dead. That's the accountability we want to have.

We want to have accountability for the fact that if you factor in inflation and you factor in the increase in enrolment in our public schools, they are now

being underfunded to the tune of $2.3 billion a year. That's how much money you've taken out of the public school system by not factoring in inflation and by not increasing the funding according to

the enrolment growth. Yet at the same time this is a government that says it's got money for private schools; a $2.3-billion-a-year shortfall in the public system, but you have money for private

schools.

Then there's your boast in terms of family centres for early child development and education, your boast that you're going to commit $30 million for 850,000

children. Premier, it works out to $35 per child.

Is that all you're prepared to invest in the young children of this province, $35, while this year the government boasts that you're going to give $2.5 billion

in bloated corporate tax cuts to corporations that don't need them? That is the accountability that we want to know about.

But I believe your statement illustrates exactly where your government is headed. When corporations want tax cuts, you're there. When high-income individuals

want tax cuts, you're there. But when it comes to clean drinking water for the majority of people across Ontario, it's at risk. When it comes to public health for the majority of people across

Ontario, it's at risk. When it comes to home care for seniors across Ontario, it's being cut and it's at risk. When it comes to having the kind of environment that our communities need, it's at

risk.

When it comes to affordable housing across Ontario, the government has no answer. The government has no priority for something as elementary, as basic, as

affordable housing.

The government is silent on all of the things that matter to the vast majority of people across this province: housing, decent education for their children,

access to health care, clean drinking water and freedom from smog and air pollution. On all of those issues this government is seemingly missing in action.

Then there is accountability on something else. Ontario has enjoyed some of the most reasonable hydroelectric prices in North America and a predictable and

stable supply of hydroelectricity. Has this government learned from California and the debacle there? Have you learned from the higher prices for electricity in Alberta?

No, you're going to repeat the same mistake. You're going to sell off our hydroelectric system to your corporate friends, who will in turn export it to the

United States and force up prices here in Ontario.

No accountability on the things that matter to the majority of people in Ontario.

VISITORS

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We have visiting with us in the gallery Andrea Rosenberg, Anna

Germaine and Linda Bernofski. They are parents of special-needs children.

Together with the six others who were introduced earlier, I'm sure the House will want to acknowledge their presence, as they're here on important

business.

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With us in the gallery today we have two community activists from

Burlington: Carol Watts and Marilyn Heinz. They are here today because they want to support my call for unanimous consent to have O Canada sung in the Legislature once a week. I seek unanimous

consent.

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

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In light of the Premier's comments that there's much work to be done over

the summer, I seek unanimous consent for the House to meet for the first two weeks of July.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

DEFERRED VOTES

PUBLIC SERVICE STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT

À LA FONCTION PUBLIQUE

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 25,

An Act to amend the Public Service Act and the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993 /

Projet de loi 25, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la fonction publique et la Loi de 1993 sur la négociation collective des employés de la Couronne.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1424 to 1429.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael D.

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Smitherman, George

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 49; the nays are 42.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'EFFICIENCE

DU GOUVERNEMENT

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 57,

An Act to promote government efficiency and to improve services to taxpayers by amending or

repealing certain Acts / Projet de loi 57, Loi visant à favoriser l'efficience du gouvernement et à améliorer les services aux contribuables en modifiant ou en abrogeant certaines

lois.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1433 to 1438.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael D.

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Smitherman, George

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 49; the nays are 42.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated June 20, 2001, this bill is ordered referred to the standing committee on general government.

APPOINTMENT OF INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

Deferred vote on the motion for an humble address to the Lieutenant Governor in Council requesting the appointment of the Honourable Coulter Osborne as

Integrity Commissioner.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1440 to 1445.

The Speaker:

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

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Beaubien, Marcel

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Clark, Brad

Cleary, John C.

Clement, Tony

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

Curling, Alvin

DeFaria, Carl

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael D.

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Kennedy, Gerard

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Smitherman, George

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

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

Bisson, Gilles

Hampton, Howard

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 83; the nays are 6.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. The people of Walkerton and indeed the people of Ontario are

looking to you specifically this week. They're looking to you to do two things: (1) stop denying the facts; (2) start accepting responsibility for your government's role in the Walkerton tragedy.

Today, Premier, you have a chance to do those two things. Yesterday the chief medical officer of health for Ontario told us that you had him sent out of the room when he tried to warn you that

public safety was at risk in Ontario. He said that you literally turned your back on public safety. Will you now and for the first time apologize for turning your back on public safety?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think you would acknowledge that we appointed Mr Justice O'Connor, that we appointed the inquiry, because

we too want to make sure that we get all the facts out on the table, that we get to the bottom of what happened in Walkerton. We support the process. We want answers to the tragic events at

Walkerton. We said from the beginning we would fully co-operate.

Your question deals with the context of testimony at Walkerton this week. As you know, I met with the lawyers for the commission of inquiry on Friday. I've

indicated I will be there this Friday. I think you would agree with me that in regard to anything that arises at the inquiry, to show respect for the inquiry and the process I ought to respond

there. I am fully co-operating. I'm looking forward to being there on Friday and being of whatever assistance I can to the inquiry. In the right context, I'll be responding, I'm sure, to those

questions.

Mr McGuinty: I would remind the Premier that we had to drag him kicking and screaming into sponsoring a public inquiry. The reason we wanted

the public inquiry had everything to do with public safety. We must ensure this never happens again. The first step is to admit what went wrong and then you have to take responsibility for what

went wrong. Here today you can stop the damage control and start repairing the damage. But when you were asked about Dr Schabas's testimony yesterday, do you know what you said, Premier? You said,

"Nothing could be further from the truth." That's what you said about the chief medical officer of health's testimony delivered yesterday before the Walkerton inquiry.

Premier, people want the truth, but you're stuck on a simple strategy: deny, deny, deny. Why did you turn your back on public health in the province of

Ontario?

Hon Mr Harris: As I indicated, that is a question that arises from testimony at the inquiry, an inquiry we supported. I might remind the

leader of the official opposition that we offered to send the matter to a legislative committee. We offered to allow you and your members to be doing the questioning. We offered that as one of the

vehicles, I think an appropriate vehicle, to get all the facts out on the table. You rejected that. You said you didn't want to be involved: "Politicians don't want to be involved. We'd rather have

an independent third party judge." So we went that route. That is the process we have. I would ask you, as I think you would expect of me, to respect that process. I have agreed to fully

co-operate. I'm looking forward to providing whatever information I can to help the inquiry this Friday.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, I appreciate the dance; I really do. But I repeat, the people of Walkerton and the people of Ontario are looking to you

now. Ever since seven people died in Walkerton, they've been looking to you to do two things in particular: (1) stop denying the facts; (2) start accepting responsibility. Today you can continue

with damage control or you can start to repair the damage.

Premier, here's another chance. Dr Schabas wasn't alone. The Environmental Commissioner warned you, the Provincial Auditor warned you, your own Minister of

Health warned you, and these warnings were clear and unequivocal. There weren't enough inspectors, there weren't enough safeguards and there was no simple requirement that people on the ground be

told their water was poisoned. Premier, will you finally admit today and for the first time that you ignored all those warnings and seven people died in Walkerton?

Hon Mr Harris: Once again I remind the member that my first offer to get to the bottom, to get all the facts on the table, was a legislative

committee with power to subpoena, with power to compel everybody to give evidence, including myself, including our ministers and including all the staff and whoever wished to be available. You

said, "No, we don't want a legislative committee. We don't want politicians involved. We don't want political answers. We'd like a judicial inquiry." So I've set that in place. We have agreed that

this vehicle is the one you preferred over the legislative committee, so you can't have it both ways. You're asking me to comment on evidence that is before the Walkerton inquiry. As I've

indicated, I met with the lawyers last Friday. I'm looking forward to being there this Friday, and I'm looking forward to getting all the information out and making sure that the facts are on the

table and the truth is known and everything is a matter of public record. That's why we appointed, with your agreement, Justice O'Connor.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question.

Mr McGuinty: This is to the Premier, Speaker. It's interesting, Premier. You tell us that you can't comment in here, but yesterday you were

very, very forthcoming in terms of castigating Dr Schabas. You said that nothing could be further from the truth when it came to Dr Schabas's testimony.

Premier, the real big concern that I have here today is that you continue to refuse to accept responsibility, and as long as you do that, you fail to ensure

this tragedy isn't repeated. Consider this: one year after the Walkerton tragedy, half the wells directly under your control are still poisoned. Seven of the 37 health units only have a part-time

officer of health. Factory farm legislation won't kick in for five long years. You still haven't hired the inspectors that we need to stop polluters and protect lives.

The first step in repairing the damage is to stop self-indulging in damage control. Premier, will you finally now, and for the first time, accept

responsibility for your government's role in Walkerton?

Hon Mr Harris: Let me say that this government has taken a number of actions, contrary to all the allegations in your question. On ORC

property, I think over 100 new wells have been drilled; considerable dollars have been expended there. A groundwater strategy, as you know, has been looked at, introduced into the Legislature. A

number of new drinking water regulatory changes have been made, now making us one of the leading jurisdictions in North America. Others are starting to look at some of the changes that we have

proposed.

So contrary to the assertion in your

preamble, in fact this government treats water -- water quality, water quantity, groundwater, all of those areas before

and brought about as a result of Walkerton and post -- very, very seriously, and we're taking action on them.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you still don't understand. This is bigger than politics. It always has been. People died. Somebody's two-year-old

little girl died. A community was devastated and a province was shaken. Now the people of Walkerton are looking to you. The last time that you went to Walkerton, you passed the buck and you tried

to blame the previous government. This time you've got a chance, here and now, to look at the people of Walkerton, look them in the eye, and apologize.

Premier, I'm asking you here and now, on behalf of the people of Walkerton and on behalf of the people of Ontario, will you now and for the first time

apologize?

Hon Mr Harris: I would remind the Leader of the Opposition again of the number of initiatives that we've taken. The Ontario Ministry of the

Environment's new regulation will help restore the public's confidence in the province's drinking water. The professional engineers of Ontario applaud the move, so obviously we've taken a number of

steps there. There's a Quebec government press release following the example of the United States and Ontario, the new Quebec regulation. We also had Ken Ogilvie, environmental watchdog, Pollution

Probe, call the new law a good piece of work. So obviously we have taken action already and, as you know, we've called the judicial inquiry.

I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that playing politics is calling for a legislative committee and, when I offer that, saying, "No, I don't want a

legislative committee. We don't want politicians involved." That's fine. You flip-flopped on that, you don't want politicians involved, so I have agreed to attend the judicial inquiry on Friday to

talk about those very matters.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, when it comes to your government's record on the environment, there is one fact that stands head and shoulders above the

rest. You have made of our province the second-worst polluter in North America. That is your legacy.

You and I couldn't even begin to understand what it must be like to lose someone you love because they were killed by tap water. Imagine what it must be like

to live through that and then look to your government for answers, look to the head of the government for answers, and instead hear denials and excuses.

You can remain defiant and you can deny, deny and deny for as long as you want, or you can do the right thing and send a strong signal today to the people who

lost loved ones in Walkerton.

When you take the stand, will you take a stand and, for the first time ever, accept responsibility for your role and your government's role in Walkerton?

Hon Mr Harris: Let me say that we have had a most compassionate response to the tragedy at Walkerton. We have expressed, as you know, our

sympathies. We have responded quickly with funds to assist the people of Walkerton to deal with the situation. We have taken a number of initiatives, including Operation Clean Water, to protect

Ontarians' drinking water, and we called the judicial inquiry to get to the bottom of what happened in this tragic situation in Walkerton.

I appreciate the member's advice to me, and I'll take it under advisement when I appear before the commission on Friday.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Today at the Walkerton inquiry, Brenda Elliott, your former Minister

of the Environment, said the entire Conservative caucus was given an uncensored briefing, including the warnings that there were risks to human health posed by your government's substantial cuts to

the budget and staff of the Ministry of the Environment. In fact, the inquiry has learned that you were given no less than 10 warnings about the threat to human health. Brenda Elliott further said

that it wasn't her decision to take these warnings out. She said the decision to take the warnings out was made by central agencies higher up in the government.

Premier, you are the focal point of those central agencies. Can you tell us who made the decision to take those warnings out so the public wouldn't see

them?

Hon Mr Harris: I'm not aware of any testimony that took place today, but I'd be happy to review that. As I indicated to the leader of the

official opposition, we set up the judicial inquiry. You're asking me about testimony that's taken place at the judicial inquiry. I've made myself available on Friday to respond to that in the same

context that any other testimony has been raised, and that is now the absolute appropriate forum for that.

I'm prepared to do that. This was the wish of the Legislature, unanimously supported by all members of the Legislature. I think it behooves us now to let the

process unfold. I personally look forward to providing any assistance I can to Justice O'Connor and the inquiry.

Mr Hampton: You were very quick yesterday, after Dr Schabas testified at the inquiry, to get into the media and say he was all wrong. So I'm a

bit puzzled why you won't answer the questions today.

You should know that it has come out at the Walkerton inquiry that the first draft of the Ministry of the Environment business plan included warnings about the

adverse health impacts from your cuts to the ministry. But you chose to hide that from the public. You replaced those words with the sentence, "We will not compromise environmental protection."

Today at the inquiry, the commission counsel said that this was misleading -- these are his words, not mine. That's what he said. I would say you were turning

your back on public health concerns in Ontario. The question is, how can you justify keeping those warnings away from the public?

Hon Mr Harris: I appreciate the question and the interest and I appreciate that you have supported the judicial inquiry process. We're fully

complying: all our ministers and all our senior staff, including the Premier of the province of Ontario.

Quite frankly, I'm a little surprised that for some reason or other you now don't support that process. As I indicated to the leader of the official

opposition, when his first request was for a legislative committee, we said, "Fine, that's a good vehicle to do that." Then, when he flip-flopped and said he would like a judicial inquiry, we said,

"Fine, that too will be public and will have the ability to compel witnesses to testify," and that's the process we've followed. I don't think it's reasonable for you now to say, "No, forget that.

Let's get back to the politicians being involved." We are fully co-operative. As you know, we very deeply regret what happened in Walkerton.

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

Mr Hampton: Premier, you keep saying we should let the inquiry unfold and that that's where the answers should be given. But in today's

testimony at the inquiry, something very strange happened. Every time the commission counsel tried to ask Brenda Elliott, "Who was ultimately responsible and accountable for what happened at

Walkerton?" the government lawyer would get on his feet and demand that the commissioner not allow the question to be put. He didn't want that question answered. He didn't want to know who is

accountable and who is responsible.

I want a guarantee from you, Premier, that when you go before the commission on Friday, the government lawyer won't be standing up and opposing the questions

about accountability and responsibility, that the government lawyer will allow those questions to be put and there will be no attempt to avoid giving the testimony. Will you give us that guarantee,

Premier?

Hon Mr Harris: I would be happy to pass on your advice to the government lawyers. I'm sure they will treat it with a great deal of respect. If

that's your advice, being an outstanding litigator of renown throughout the province of Ontario, I'm sure that is advice they might like to receive.

I can't comment on what took place today or what lawyers say or what they don't say. All I can do is tell you that we responded quickly to the people of

Walkerton. We responded quickly to their needs. We have undertaken significant remedial action. We have restored water to the people of Walkerton. We've restored confidence. We've offered and

worked with the insurance companies to provide compensation. We have also called this public inquiry with Justice O'Connor to get the facts out on the table in the manner that Justice O'Connor and

the lawyers for the commission would like, and we're fully complying with that. Surely you can't ask us to do any more than that.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. This is about another issue where accountability is due. It's about

the death of Dudley George. The George family has asked over and over again for a public inquiry into the death of an unarmed man. Your government has refused. Now in the civil trial there is

documentation which indicates there is a memo that says you gave the order to the Attorney General to "Get the Indians out of the park today." Premier, do you deny the existence of such a memo?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Attorney General can respond.

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The memo the member opposite refers to is one of thousands of

documents that have been produced as part of the proceedings. It is, and has been for some time, a document of public record. On its face, if one is to look at it, it is a document that seems to

say this government did apply for an injunction. It goes on to say or suggest that the government did so in an effort to resolve the dispute. That's consistent with what has been said by

representatives of this government from day one.

Mr Hampton: It is interesting that the government's position here seems to be that it is prepared to answer questions that are before the

court. So let me follow that up with another question.

The documents from the civil trial indicate that the memo is very specific. Instruction from the Premier to the Attorney General: "Get the Indians out of the

park now." Do you admit that that memo says exactly those specific words, and if it doesn't, please tell us how you interpret the meaning of that memo.

Hon Mr Young: This is a really fine example of why this Legislative Assembly shouldn't be reviewing the matter that is in front of the court.

We have an independent judiciary with an impartial judge who in due course will look at all of the documents, including the single document referenced by the member opposite, and ultimately will

come to a conclusion. I have a great deal of confidence in the judiciary, the same place that we send our constituents each and every day to resolve outstanding disputes. I would ask the members

opposite to place their trust in the same judiciary.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier. Premier, I believe you are in a serious conflict-of-interest

situation and you must remove yourself from that conflict of interest. I refer to the Ipperwash Provincial Park issue. On the one hand, there is considerable evidence that you were deeply and

personally involved in the events surrounding the shooting death. Yesterday, evidence was made public that you -- I'm quoting -- "[desire] removal within 24 hours." On the other hand, it is you who

controls whether or not there is a public inquiry into the events. So you have a serious conflict of interest. You are personally deeply involved in it, but it is you who controls whether there is

a public inquiry that will look into your actions.

Will you agree, Premier, to remove yourself from this conflict by referring the matter to the Chief Justice of Ontario so he can make a recommendation on

whether or not there should be a public inquiry?

Hon Mr Harris: Mr Speaker, I'd be pleased to refer the question to the Attorney General.

Hon Mr Young: First of all, this is yet another example of why it is dangerous for members of this Legislative Assembly to pretend that we're

not in a Legislative Assembly but in some sort of Star Chamber. When you read half a quote, when you read half a document, it does not serve the cause of justice, with the greatest respect.

As for the idea that there should be a public inquiry, I say to you again what we've said on many occasions, and that is that the issues that are being

examined, the very issues that are being examined by the impartial court, the very same issues, are the issues that would be examined in any public inquiry. I would encourage the members opposite

to allow the defendants to have their day in court.

Mr Phillips: This would be the same as you've seen in Walkerton. The only inquiry we will have is if some victim of one of the dead people

launched a civil case against you.

I return to the central issue, Premier. There is considerable evidence that you were personally involved, deepy involved and inappropriately involved. I will

quote two other documents: "Deputy minister said -- can't interfere with police decision," but the Premier and Hodgson "came out strong." I'll repeat the other statement: "The Attorney General was

instructed by the Premier that he desires removal within 24 hours."

You, Premier, were deeply involved in this situation. On the other hand, it is you who personally is stopping the public inquiry. There is a direct analogy

here with Walkerton, where we are finding the value of the public inquiry and finding that the civil case was not the route to go.

I will return to you, Premier. Will you do the appropriate thing, the decent thing? Will you refer this issue to the Chief Justice of Ontario and let him make

this decision? Remove yourself from that conflict, that direct, obvious and important conflict. Will you do that today, Premier: refer this to the Chief Justice of Ontario and let him make a

decision independently on behalf of the people of Ontario?

Hon Mr Young: If the member opposite had any interest in getting to the bottom of things, if he had any interest in fairness, he would have

read the conclusion of that quote.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Attorney General, take his seat.

Come to order. The member for Eglinton-Lawrence, come to order. The member for Hamilton East as well.

Sorry, Attorney General.

Hon Mr Young: As I was saying, if the member was anxious to get to the bottom of this, if he had any interest in fairness, he would have read

the rest of that quote.

Mr Phillips: I will happily read it out in the hall, and I will read it all.

Hon Mr Young: He chose not to, and that is the problem with members --

The Speaker: Will the member please take his seat. Sorry again, Attorney General.

Hon Mr Young: That's the problem with members in this legislative chamber pretending as though this is a Star Chamber. There is a matter in

front of the court. It is a court that in due course will consider all of the evidence, that will consider all of the documents, and will ultimately render a decision, a decision that will

potentially attribute blame and might assess damages. Surely the members opposite have enough confidence in the judiciary of this province to allow that to occur.

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Minister, yesterday I had the privilege of

joining you, Minister Hudak and the Premier in Grimsby when you announced the Niagara Peninsula transportation needs assessment study.

As I said yesterday, it's obviously a win-win to build this highway south and away from the Niagara fruit belt and the Niagara Escarpment. Secondly, because

the study area parallels the northern boundary of Haldimand and Brant, construction of this highway can only boost the local economy in my riding to the south.

Minister, I understand that you, the Premier and a number of our colleagues are participating in the New York-Ontario economic summit held in Buffalo, New

York, and Niagara Falls, Ontario. I'm sure that a wealth of ideas were exchanged at this summit, ideas that will help form future business dealings with our great trading partner, New York state.

I'm wondering if the minister could share with the House some of the ideas he has brought back.

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Transportation): The last couple of days have been very exciting for the province of Ontario and the state of New

York.

One of the main things that struck me was the role of the United States federal government in funding transportation infrastructure. Here in Ontario, I'm proud

That's only 2%. Meanwhile, from 1995 to the end of the 2000 fiscal year, New York state made a total capital investment in highways of US$12.2 billion. The US federal government's contribution for

the same period of time was US$5.6 billion. That's 46% of what the state put in.

There is a glaring contrast in federal commitments to transportation infrastructure funding. I'd urge the federal government to take appropriate action to

address this inequity.

Mr Barrett: Obviously from that response the honourable member makes a hard-hitting argument. As you said, Minister, the Canadian government

contributes only 2% of Ontario's highway bills versus the US federal government's 46% investment in New York state. It points to some basic flaws in the federal government's thinking when it comes

to transportation funding.

I would ask the minister if he has any further information about US versus Canadian federal transportation funding.

Hon Mr Clark: I'd like to point out that the United States government is investing over US$200 billion in transportation through its

five years for all of Canada. Ontario's share of the highway component will be restricted to $168 million. Federal funding levels need to reflect that Ontario's highways are important trade

corridors. Ontario should receive its fair share of any federal monies allocated for transportation, and it's not just our government that thinks this way.

Yesterday, when I announced the Niagara needs assessment study, David Leonhardt, spokesperson for the CAA, said the absence of the federal government was

worrisome. He called on the federal government to allocate some of its revenues to the mid-Peninsula highway project. I agree; we hope the opposition does. I don't think so.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Education. Madam Minister, it's not too late when it comes

to your private school voucher plan. We're going to have a final vote either tomorrow or the day following.

I'm asking now, recognizing that you have been unable to produce any reports, any evidence whatsoever that would support this massive flip-flop your government

has undertaken here, understanding that you didn't campaign on this in 1995 and 1999, that you yourself said this was a bad idea, that you argued against this before the United Nations, knowing

that we've now got 37,000 kids who are on waiting lists for psychological assessments, special ed kids, and that at half of our schools our parents are devoting themselves to fundraising for

textbooks and basic school supplies, understanding all of that and knowing how dreadfully wrong it would be to take $500 million from our public schools and invest that in private schools, Madam

Minister, will you now come to your senses, come to the aid of public education and scrap your voucher plan?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): This government agrees that the submissions of parents, that the choice of

parents, is something that should be respected, whether it is within the public education system or outside the public education system. This particular proposal by the government respects that

parental choice. I know the Liberal Party does not respect parental choice. On this side of the House, we do.

Mr McGuinty: Madam Minister, you may choose to abandon public education, but I want you to know, I want viewers to know and I want all

Ontarians to know, that we choose to support it. I want them to know as well that we will never invest public dollars in private schools. We will repeal your private school voucher plan. We've got

a positive plan to help public education for our working families. It starts with smaller classes. It involves turnaround teams to help our schools that are struggling. It involves lighthouse

schools so that we can share best practices among all our schools. By so doing, our plan will help lift all schools up. It seems to me that's the kind of plan you should be putting forward. Having

the opportunity now to reconsider this, one more time, will you now agree that our positive plan of support for public education is much better and much stronger than your plan, which is to abandon

it? Once again, I ask you to scrap your voucher plan.

Hon Mrs Ecker: To the honourable member, on one day his members say that funding to independent schools is OK and they're not opposed; now

he's saying that funding to independent schools is something he's opposed to. His candidate in Vaughan-King-Aurora, Sorbara, has been talking about, "Sometimes we're opposed; sometimes we're in

favour." I guess it depends on which day of the week the honourable member is talking about it. It's a matter of when, how, if, that, and not at this time. "We can't figure out which side of the

fence we're on on this issue."

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The members take their seats. Come to order, please.

Hon Mrs Ecker: The honourable member says he's going to scrap the tax credit proposal we have in this legislation to respect parental choice,

but it's interesting that he hasn't said he's not going to fund independent schools. He says that maybe he will. He won't do it through a tax credit. Maybe he'll do it some other way. He hasn't

ruled it out. Yet again, here we go. This government remains committed to the public education system. It is a priority. We've put more money in it. We will continue to invest in public education

because it is important to the parents --

The Speaker: The minister's time is up.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Earlier today you introduced a waste diversion bill in

the Legislature. In my riding, constituents have been asking for deposit return to be brought back for soft drink containers. There is a concern throughout Ontario for the blue box program. It has

been a very well-accepted program. In my riding we've had a wet-dry collection system since 1995. The county of Northumberland needs some assistance with this program. Minister, how will support be

provided for the blue box program and the wet-dry collection program, and how will this legislation affect waste diversion in Ontario?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of the Environment): Yes, I know that in the member's community they have a good program. What this initiative

today will do, which I will tell you is a very bold, innovative step, is undertake to establish a very unique voluntary partnership between businesses and municipalities in this province. It will

be funded 50-50 by both industry and municipalities. That will ensure the sustainability of the blue box program. It will also have as its goal to reduce waste diversion by 50%. Certainly this

initiative will do a great deal to ensure that those targets are met and that we can continue to respond to the need to ensure our environment and our health are protected.

Mr Galt: Thank you, Minister, for that very informative answer. Consultation with stakeholders has become a hallmark of our government. We're

one of the most consultative governments in the history of Ontario. We've had extensive consultations on various issues and pre-introduction of bills. In the 36th Parliament, we had more hours and

more days of hearings than either of the previous governments.

Minister, I know you and your ministry have also been consulting on this legislation for a long time. Would you share with us what the various stakeholders had

to say about the Waste Diversion Act?

Hon Mrs Witmer: There has been incredible consultation on this waste diversion organization. In fact, there will be further opportunity for

consultation this summer. But let me just share with you the quote by Ann Mulvale, president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. She indicated, "We are pleased to have been part of

this innovative solution to accelerate waste diversion in Ontario. We congratulate the government for adopting the WDO recommendations. AMO and municipalities will continue to support this process

and the work of the Waste Diversion Ontario.... We are particularly pleased that the 50-50 cost sharing arrangement between industry and municipalities in support of municipal blue box programs

will be enshrined in law."

The quotes and support from municipalities and industry go on and on and on.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Yesterday your Minister of Health and Long-Term Care attended a

celebration of the completion of a new wing at Toronto East General Hospital. While he was there, both the retiring president and the new president of the hospital told your Minister of Health that

they won't be able to open the new wing and operate it because you haven't come up with the operating funding.

The people of East York raised $4 million to build the new wing, but they won't be able to use the new wing because your government hasn't provided the

operating funding. Premier, will you now observe your responsibility and ensure that the $9 million in operating funding is made available so the people can use their hospital?

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

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I would like to thank the leader of the third party for highlighting to this House

that this government put $17 million of the taxpayers' money into Toronto East General for the new J wing, and we are proud of that fact.

Thank you to the honourable member for allowing me to highlight that that is part of an unprecedented $29-million package of capital spending for Toronto East

General by this government. So I can say to the honourable member that we have been there for Toronto East General a darned sight better than his government did in their day, a darned sight better

for the residents of east Toronto than in his day, and we are proud of that fact too.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): Minister, it is a really beautiful new wing, but it's empty. There are no patients, there are no

doctors, there are no nurses, there are no ward clerks, there's no one in it.

The people of my community -- this is my community, Beaches-East York. I was out there with them in the Buy a Brick campaign. We raised the money we needed to

make that a reality. It's part of the overall restructuring of all of Toronto. We've got more people coming there because of hospital restructuring decisions. Because of home care cuts that have

happened in my community, an average of 100 discharges a month won't be able to go into the community. They're going to be in that hospital.

We expected a full range of services to be open this summer. The hospital has made it very clear to you that that wing, including the 40-bed continuing complex

care unit, will not open without the $9 million for operating costs.

Minister, I'm asking you, please, this is a personal request for a commitment to the people of my community that you won't leave the shiny, new wing sitting

open and that you will tell us today you're going to commit the operating dollars so those services can be there for my community this summer.

Hon Mr Clement: Who said we were going to build an entire new wing and then leave it empty? Who said that? No one on this side of the House

said that.

I can assure this House that we will deliver the best care for east Toronto residents, including the J wing of Toronto East General. Who on this side of the

House said we were not going to do that? We have put our money where our mouth is: $29 million in new capital funding for that wing, for complex continuing care, for surgical operations, for

neonatal. We will be there for the people of east Toronto. Never before has this investment been seen in east Toronto. We on this side of the House are proud of our reinvestment.

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Premier. It appears in some quarters that you're going to hang Norm Sterling

out to dry when he appears before the commission, just because he did nothing, and yet everybody knows that the buck stops in your office. In fact, people from the commission of inquiry know the

buck stops in your office. Even though they've heard you say you're prepared to co-operate to the utmost, that you had nothing to hide, that everything was going to be forthcoming, on at least two

different occasions, the RCMP had to raid your office to get the information they wanted.

If you had nothing to hide, why, on two different occasions, did the RCMP have to go to your office to raid it to get documentation they obviously couldn't

otherwise get?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I don't know where you get your information. The RCMP were invited to my office to get whatever information

they wanted.

Mr Bradley: Perhaps they were looking for information related to what Dr Schabas had to say on Monday. Let's look at the kind of individual

we're talking about. Dr Charles Hollenberg, a former director of the cancer care agency, said of him, "Dr Schabas is an intelligent, principled man who should not be ignored. He is one of the most

able public health officers Canada has ever had."

Dr Schabas gave you a warning. In retrospect, given the tragedy that happened in Walkerton, where seven people died and over 2,000 became seriously ill, if you

had the chance to do it over again, would you have turned away from Dr Schabas and refused to listen to his warnings?

Hon Mr Harris: The premise of the question is part of testimony to the inquiry. I'll be pleased to respond to that on Friday.

On the first part of the question, I think it needs to be restated that we have fully co-operated with the commission of inquiry. We've made all the

information available.

Mr Bradley: I understand that.

Hon Mr Harris: If you understand that, then, by way of your third supplementary, you wouldn't have phrased the question with information that

was inaccurate. I think it's important now that the record show you understand that the question you asked first was inaccurate too.

FAMILY HEALTH NETWORKS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question today is to the Minister of Health. As you would know, our government has been consistent with the

message that providing quality health care to the people of Ontario is our top priority. For this reason, I was very pleased, of course, when Premier Harris once again reaffirmed our government's

commitment by announcing the formation of a new organization, one designed to provide the people of Ontario with steady health care through local family health networks called the Ontario Family

Health Network.

This month you announced the board of directors for the Ontario Family Health Network. One of those individuals, I'm pleased to say, is from the riding of

Durham, Ms Betty Penny. Can you outline for my constituents and for all the people of Ontario what the main functions of this organization are expected to be?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Indeed, our government is proud to be supporting the Ontario Family Health Network,

a network that is going to encourage family doctors and other health providers such as nurse practitioners to work together in a primary health care network to provide more enhanced, 24-hour-a-day,

seven-day-a-week accessible care for people who wish to have access to family physicians.

We're expecting to see 80% of our family physicians join the family health networks, 600 of them over the next three years. I'm proud to say that since

November of last year, an additional 40 groups representing as many as 550 doctors have requested a meeting as the next stage to get to establishing a family health network as well.

I should say for the record that we have committed $250 million to the effort, including $100 million of financial incentives for doctors who join family

health networks.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, that answer clearly outlines your commitment. I know you're continually working on forming partnerships with doctors,

nurse practitioners and other health care providers. I hear that in caucus. I have every confidence in your commitment. In your last answer, you indicated $250 million to help with the expansion of

primary care networks across Ontario over the next three years. Could you explain to my constituents in Durham and all the people of Ontario how this program will help, specifically, areas like

mine, the rural parts of Ontario?

Hon Mr Clement: We are quite confident this will have a major impact in both our rural and northern areas in particular. We're trying to find

better health care for our citizens in these areas, indeed in all areas of Ontario, through extended office hours and weekend and holiday service, at no extra charge to the patients, I might add;

as well, a system for the doctors to share information about patient medical history and medications and treatment with the professionals of the network. For instance, if a patient is treated at

night, the very next morning the family physician will know what follow-up is necessary immediately for that patient.

We think it's a better system for family physicians, a better system for patients, a better system for nurse practitioners and other health professionals, to

finally work together outside of the hospital setting and thereby give us better health care for all Ontario.

DIALYSIS

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): My question is to the same minister, the Minister of Health. Thelma Poitras of Long Sault

is one of 18 plus residents of our part of eastern Ontario who have to receive dialysis treatment. Right now Thelma must travel three times a week to Ottawa, Kingston or Brockville to receive this

treatment. She leaves at 10:30 in the morning and returns at 7 at night. The Red Cross provides transportation, but they charge an additional $300. As well, she must wait, exhausted after her

treatment, until everyone else has had their treatment and they return home.

Because of your failure to provide sufficient access to dialysis treatment in Cornwall, Thelma and 17 other individuals travel to Ottawa or Brockville three

times a week. Now that might not seem like a long time to you, Minister, but I can tell you it's a heck of a long time after three hours of treatment. The amazing thing is the facilities are

already there in the community for these patients who want to receive treatment locally, and the funding is there as well. The only problem seems to be government red tape.

Minister, I have been writing to you and the former minister about this. I even spoke to you in the Legislature and you told me you would get back to me. To

date, you have failed to reply. How much longer do I have to wait and how much longer do my dialysis patients have to wait?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I have been having a conversation with the honourable member and I will continue to

seek his input and advice. I can tell this House what I'd be happy to tell the honourable member directly, that indeed there will be an expansion of kidney dialysis in Cornwall in the near future.

We are funding it, we are approving it, just as we have been approving the expansion of kidney dialysis in many of our rural settings and many other communities across this province.

We have seen an unprecedented expansion of kidney dialysis to provide better health care at home for our communities, for people in our less populated areas,

so they can have the kind of health care the honourable member requests. Cornwall will be no exception. We intend to approve the program for Cornwall as well.

Mr Cleary: That sounds like a lot of rhetoric. We've been getting the runaround for a long time.

I have a letter here from the Cornwall General Hospital. It says they won't be able to have dialysis treatment there until mid-winter of 2002. That's not good

enough. This means patients will still have to travel under winter conditions to Ottawa, Toronto or Brockville. It means Mrs Poitras will still have to pay her $300 a month. Thelma and these other

patients have no choice if they want to live. Minister, you have to expand the dialysis service for Cornwall and area. It won't cost the government one extra penny. How much longer are these

patients going to have to wait because they want to have dialysis in their own community? I would like an answer.

Hon Mr Clement: The answer is yes. The answer has been yes since October 2000, when we committed another $37.9 million for kidney dialysis

services, which includes the expansion and establishment of new dialysis units in Fort Frances, Cornwall, Hawkesbury, Peterborough, Toronto, Winchester, Picton, Bancroft, Barry's Bay and

Goderich.

We are moving ahead with this. We are working with the local hospital authorities to see dialysis available in the honourable member's catchment area and

constituency. This is a commitment we made in October 2000. It's the right thing to do. We have found the money to do it. We are expanding health care services in this area, just as we are

expanding as a result of another $1.2-billion budget increase for health care in the 2001 budget.

We will be there for the citizens of Cornwall, and the honourable member can be part of our team. If he wants to be helpful, he should contact his local MP to

make sure the federal Liberals understand how important health care is in Cornwall so they can be part of the solution as well. That would be helpful.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member is interfering with the member trying to ask the question. I would appreciate allowing the member for

Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey to ask it. Sorry for the interruption.

Mr Tilson: To the Minister of Community and Social Services: I've been approached by a number of residents in my riding of

Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey with respect to looking after individuals with a developmental disability. They've been educating me on the need to continue to offer day programs and respite services

to the families who live with developmental disabilities on a daily basis. The need seems to be greatest with young adults who are over the age of 21 and out of the school system.

Minister, you recently announced additional funding for individuals with a developmental disability and their families. This of course is good news for all

Ontarians. Would the minister be able to give my constituents more details on how this new money will be distributed?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for children, minister responsible for francophone

affairs): Let me acknowledge at the outset the commitment my colleague from Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey has brought to this issue, as have a good number of members from all sides of the

House.

This government recognizes we can do more to support people with a developmental disability in their community. I can tell you that in this member's riding

we're going to do a lot to try to address the quality of care. We're going to do a lot to help revitalize agencies. He mentioned respite care. Obviously that's tremendously important to supporting

families and communities. Day programs can be a really big input, not just for the person with a developmental disability but their family in terms of being able to provide a place for them in the

world and in terms of providing respite care during the day. I think agencies in his constituency will be able to benefit from these initiatives.

We have made a commitment to the Ontario Association for Community Living and the OASIS group, the two principal groups that lobby on behalf of people with a

developmental disability. We want to get this funding flowing within 100 days of the announcement we made in late May, and we're on track to do that, and in the member's constituency.

Mr Tilson: I'm hopeful families in my constituency will benefit from this funding. My colleague Mr Spina, the member from Brampton Centre, and

I have been working with Brampton-Caledon Community Living to ensure that students who are currently enrolled in a program with the Ministry of Education's after-21 pilot project have a similar

program available to them in September, because at that time it ends. It's important for both the students and their families that these young adults have community-based programs to access in the

coming months. Can the minister assure me today that he is planning now as to the best way to serve these families?

Hon Mr Baird: I can certainly give that commitment to my colleague for his part of the province. Providing supports for those young people

leaving the school system is something that's incredibly important. There is a pilot project that has been going on in which people are still in school, the pilot project the member mentioned. That

will be continued in the next year.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Baird: The member opposite from Kingston says we're not doing anything. We announced a new program last year providing $6 million. Some

people were disappointed there was no specific mention in the budget about continuing this program. I'm pleased to commit that we will not only continue the program, but we will provide a 100%

increase in the budget to be able to provide supports for people in the member opposite's riding.

I know he and our colleague from Brampton have worked and lobbied very hard on this effort and I want to congratulate him and his colleague for their work on

this behalf. We're very excited that the foundations initiative will be able to double and expand right across Ontario.

FIRST NATIONS

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. He was here.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Any help from anyone on whether he's left for the day? No, his books are here. There he is, down at the end.

Sorry, I didn't recognize him. Wait until he gets to his seat.

Continue, leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: Minister, for four years now the NAN First Nation in northern Ontario have asked your government for a meaningful consultation

process before you try to push more logging and mining developments in their territory. During the so-called Lands for Life process, you refused. De Beers diamonds, which is interested in diamond

exploration, has written to your government and advocated that you begin a consultation process. You've refused again. Now the NAN First Nation has taken the unprecedented step of going to the

United States Department of Commerce and asking them to investigate whether or not Ontario is subsidizing the softwood lumber industry on the backs of First Nations. It's unprecedented, Minister,

but they've had to do it to get your attention. Will you commit to meaningful consultations with NAN First Nations before you try to push more mining and logging developments in their

territory?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): The leader of the third party will know from his experience in government that there are a

series of regular meetings with First Nation groups, including NAN, across the province to talk about these very serious issues and about the development and economic prosperities of their

communities. We take that very seriously.

We met as early as two weeks ago. I know that the Minister of Northern Development was involved in that meeting, as was the Minister of Energy and the Attorney

General. So we had quite a gathering. We have ongoing meetings to meet these concerns and to try to plan a future together, because we think that's the way to do it.

The Speaker: Supplementary, member for Timmins-James Bay.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): One quick meeting with the NAN First Nation is not going to do it. You're not doing meaningful

consultation as is required under term 49 of the EA. The First Nations communities are being very clear to you. They're saying, "If you don't take the time and consult with us, we will take action

ourselves." If that happens it means jobs in northern Ontario could be at risk when it comes to the development of both mining and forestry north of 50.

Minister, we are asking you very simply to do your job. Stop hiding behind your desk. Get out and consultate with the First Nations communities. Do that for

the good of not only the First Nations community but for the betterment of Ontario.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'd like the member opposite to know that I give good consultate. In fact -- it's a serious subject -- at the meeting that I

mentioned earlier, two weeks ago, we committed to a series of meetings from this date forward. We are planning those right now so we can have serious discussions, because we take the economic

development of our First Nations communities very seriously and we know the way to do that is through partnership. We have a proven track record on that. That's why we have 378 new parks and

protected areas in this province. That's why we've been able to preserve more than six million additional acres for future generations and why we have a healthy and prosperous forest industry in

this province by an accord. That's our record and we're going to build on it.

HOME CARE

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, with your typical cavalier attitude you stepped in

yesterday and you fired the board of the CCAC in Hamilton that runs home care. That's typical of this government, as you simply continue to blame others. Clearly, the report that you chose to

ignore sections of also blamed your government for lack of direction for boards in the province of Ontario.

Since 1997, you have set up these boards without any clear guidelines, without any clear directions. You've underfunded home care in Hamilton. Instead of

dealing with those real, deep-rooted issues that have denied proper access to home care, you took the easy way out; you took the cheap way out. You stepped in, you fired the board, and you're going

to step in and save us again. You did this with the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp and then you bailed them out and acknowledged you were wrong.

Minister, will you acknowledge that you are as responsible for the problems in home care in Hamilton as the board that you just fired? Give us the proper

funding. Fix the problem. Give us some clear guidelines. Stop pointing fingers and start pointing directions to boards across Ontario.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I thought I had heard everything in this House, but now I have heard everything in

this House. Here is an honourable member, who, if he read the report today -- it would have shown serious managerial deficiencies, serious governance deficiencies that were affecting the health of

his own constituents. He has the gall, the audacity, to stand in his place and to say that we should not act to save the health of --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Will the minister take his seat. I fight to give to the member the last question and we end up yelling and

screaming at each other. Sorry for the interruption. Minister of Health.

Hon Mr Clement: He is a member of a caucus that defines itself by saying no to common sense. When we come in here and we want tax cuts to

create jobs, they vote no. When we come in here and we want to reduce red tape to create more jobs and more economic opportunity, they say no. When we want to reform the welfare system to ensure

that people on welfare have a decent chance for a job, they say no. They know how to say no; they have no idea how to govern.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Notwithstanding standing order 30(b), I'd

like to seek unanimous consent to allow the full 15-minute allotment for the presentation of petitions.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Interjection: No.

The Speaker: I'm afraid I heard some noes.

The member for Windsor-St Clair has given me a point of privilege and he may proceed.

CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wrote to you earlier today pursuant to standing order 21(c), serving notice that

I intended to raise this point of privilege this afternoon regarding the Provincial Auditor, whose role it is to ensure the accountability of the government of Ontario.

It is my submission that the government of Ontario has perpetrated a contempt of this Legislature by impeding and obstructing an officer of this House, the

Provincial Auditor.

What is it to be in contempt of Parliament? Let me quickly cite two references from the 22nd edition of Erskine May. Quoting from page 108 on contempt,

"Generally speaking, any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House

in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there's no precedent of the offence."

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaker in 1980. She wrote, "While our privileges are defined, contempt of the House has no limits. When new ways are found to interfere with our proceedings, so too will the House, in appropriate

cases, be able to find that a contempt of the House has occurred."

The case of privilege that I rise upon today stems from a letter that was sent from the Provincial Auditor to my colleague, Mr John Gerretsen, Chair of the

standing committee on public accounts. You, sir, were copied on that letter. Among other things, the letter states, "The board's reduction by $608,800 of the funds requested to perform my

responsibilities under the Audit Act must be considered in light of the fact that my office is by far the most underfunded legislative office in Canada."

It is the mandate of the Provincial Auditor to assist the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in holding the government and its administrators accountable for the

quality of the administration's stewardship of public funds and for the achievement of value for money in government operations.

The Provincial Auditor goes on in his letter to say, "As a servant of the Legislative Assembly and the public accounts committee, I consider the inadequate

funding provided as interfering with my office's ability to fulfill its responsibilities under the Audit Act in a timely manner and is counterproductive to good accountability." The auditor's word

is "interfering."

Mr Speaker, earlier this session we heard from the Information and Privacy Commissioner with respect to the difficulty she was having in getting information

from the government. The Ombudsman has reported on his concerns respecting the government's lack of willingness to co-operate. Last week, the Environmental Commissioner took the extraordinary step

of issuing a special report to criticize the government for disregarding and discounting the authority of his office.

We now have a letter from the Provincial Auditor clearly stating that he cannot fulfill his responsibilities due to government interference. The government

controls the Board of Internal Economy. The Minister of Labour has stated openly his views at those meetings with respect to not providing the auditor with the funds requested. Such interference

with an officer of the Legislature, it is our contention, is nothing less than contempt.

Earlier today, Brenda Elliott, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and a former Minister of the Environment, testified at the Walkerton inquiry with

respect to government business plans, that in fact there were two different business plans for the Ministry of the Environment in existence in 1996. One, an internal document, included some of the

potential risks that could result from cuts to the ministry. The other, a document for public consumption, did not contain the risks. That document was tabled in this Legislature in May 1996.

The document states in part, "Central to this approach is the principle of accountability." The document goes on to note, "As recommended by the Ontario

Financial Review Commission and by the Provincial Auditor, the government will work with the Legislature to integrate business planning and performance measurement into ministers' accountability in

the Legislature."

It's interesting to note, by the way, sir, that in the ministry's core business plan in 1996, it states that "safe drinking water is a right."

Mr Speaker, I believe that Minister Elliott's testimony today, in addition to the letter from the Provincial Auditor, serves as an important example of a lack

of willingness on the part of the government to co-operate with you as Speaker or with the officers of your assembly.

Mr Speaker, in the last three weeks, four officers of this assembly have reported on varying degrees of government lack of willingness to participate in their

statutory obligations and hence have deprived members of this assembly, but more importantly the people of Ontario, of the right to have oversight of their government and to have truly open,

accessible government.

It is my submission that this type of activity should be uncovered by the Provincial Auditor, yet today in the clearest of terms he has alleged interference in

the performance of his duties. We believe, Mr Speaker, that there is a systemic campaign designed to prevent true accountability to this House.

We have as examples the Information and Privacy Commissioner, the Ombudsman, the Environment Commissioner and today, the Provincial Auditor. We are told under

sworn testimony today that with government business plans in 1996, there was one set for the public and one set for the government. It's our allegation, sir, and we call upon you to defend the

interests of this Legislature and defend the interests of the people of Ontario from a government that is systematically keeping information from the public.

We have seen the use of time allocation and closure in this House more than ever before. Everything points to a systematic determination to undermine our

ability as members to hold to account the government, but most importantly, sir, when we witness the kinds of consequences we've seen, such as Walkerton, we understand full well the importance of

not having two sets of documents, but one, so we can understand them all. Most importantly, no government should use its majority at the Board of Internal Economy to interfere with the Provincial

Auditor, a Provincial Auditor who is funded less than any other auditor in any Legislature in the country.

Mr Speaker, we ask you to consider this point of privilege in light of that, the letter and other evidence I've provided you with, and we anxiously await your

response.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): On the same point of privilege, the Minister of Labour.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. If there was a point of privilege there, I haven't heard it. It's a house of

cards --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I haven't heard it. We have an opportunity of listening to them as well. I don't know what privilege he's standing on.

Mr Duncan: Contempt.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Contempt? Now it's contempt.

Mr Speaker, luckily you were at the meeting, which may bring some light into this situation. There is a process that's put in place. This house of cards that

was built by the opposition House leader is so bogus and so completely full of holes that the abuse is the amount of time this Legislative Assembly is taking to discuss it.

First, the process for the Board of Internal Economy is to set the budgets for the officers of this Legislative Assembly. Had he talked to any members of that

-- and he has a member on it; the member for Hamilton East, I believe. He knows full well the process is that the budgets are submitted, debated, passed, and they can be appealed. The Provincial

Auditor exercised his right to appeal under the process adopted by the Board of Internal Economy. In that appeal process, the auditor outlined his position to the committee yesterday, also citing

in that letter, which I don't have a copy of -- I wish I had thought to bring it today; it would have been very helpful to know this was being brought up by the member opposite. I would outline

that the Provincial Auditor made a significant number of assertions at that meeting. Those assertions had nothing to do with contempt. Those assertions had nothing to do with contempt by this

House.

Also, if the member knew the Audit Act, he would know that the auditor has a provision to get to this House if he believes there is interference or any kind of

process that any member of this House is using to impede his ability to do the job.

Now, Mr Speaker, the crux of this issue comes down to, what did the Board of Internal Economy decide to do yesterday with that appeal? The Board of Internal

Economy decided, as the members of the government said they would like to do some discussing of this with their members of caucus, checking out the facts as submitted by the auditor -- which I

don't think is unreasonable at all, doing some simple due diligence on the information brought to the committee by the auditor to determine whether or not it is truly reflective of the assertions

that were being made. In essence, Mr Speaker -- and you were there -- they asked to defer the decision for two weeks. They didn't decide not to do what the auditor requested. They didn't decide to

pass the budget that was passed at the Board of Internal Economy. They simply decided -- and if this is contempt, it's unbelievable -- to take two weeks to investigate the information, talk to the

members of their own caucus and ask them what they think of this particular approach.

This is ridiculous, to outline in this House that somehow taking two weeks before making a decision to talk to your members is contempt. The member obviously

has become House leader and he's built this house of cards overnight, with the help, I guess, of the member for Hamilton East and the member for Kingston, who was there as Chair of the public

accounts committee.

This is disgraceful, that he would even intimate that there was any contempt, any thought of contempt, any thought by this government to railroad some decision

down the auditor's throat, when the simple request at the Board of Internal Economy was, "Maybe we should talk to our caucus mates. Maybe we should investigate this information and we should decide

to make a decision in two weeks." Contempt? That's piffle.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Mr Speaker, on the same point: as briefly as possible, I want the Speaker to know that the New Democrats

share the concerns raised by the Liberal House leader. It's understood that the vote on the matter has been deferred for two weeks, but that's precisely the problem, that is, in two weeks' time one

has to assume there will be no Legislature sitting, no Speaker sitting to which an appeal can be made for relief.

I can't quarrel with the fact that the decision hasn't been made yet and that to some extent you're being asked to rule upon something in an anticipatory way.

But the appeal to you, Speaker, I submit, is at the very least at this point, in view of the fact that it is anticipatory, to clearly express, in response to the point of privilege raised, some

direction and guidance as to what constitutes and what does not constitute contempt in this context.

Last evening, the Speaker is well aware, we talked about the nature of the special servants of the House, the officers of this assembly, when we were debating

another motion. Clearly one does not want to entrust them with responsibilities and obligations; the special responsibilities and obligations of the auditor being to hold the government

accountable, as the auditor and the auditor's office have done for success