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

June 7, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Jun-07 vol. A (PDF)

L068A - Wed 7 Jun 2000 / Mer 7 jun 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES FUNDING

SILVER BIRCH LITERATURE AWARDS PROGRAM

CANCER TREATMENT

HALDIMAND-NORFOLK ECONOMY

INTERGENERATIONAL WEEK

RIVERDALE YOUTH SINGERS

NORTHUMBERLAND ECONOMY

MEDICAL OFFICERS OF HEALTH

JUDD SHEMESH

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

1264030 ONTARIO INC. ACT, 2000

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

QUESTION PERIOD

ORAL QUESTIONS

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

WATER QUALITY

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

WATER QUALITY

CROWN ATTORNEYS

WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE

ONTARIO CLEAN WATER AGENCY

TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING

RURAL ONTARIO

ONTARIO PRODUCE

MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

PENSION FUNDS

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

LORD'S PRAYER

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

DURHAM COLLEGE

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

KARLA HOMOLKA

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BRIAN'S LAW (MENTAL HEALTH LEGISLATIVE REFORM), 2000 / LOI BRIAN DE 2000 SUR LA RÉFORME LÉGISLATIVE CONCERNANT LA SANTÉ MENTALE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES FUNDING

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): Yesterday the headlines of the Kingston Whig-Standard screamed out, "OPP Will Pull Plug on Pen Squad." Once again the residents of my riding have seen the effects of the government's downloading and its negative results on the local property taxpayers. Yesterday the city of Kingston was unilaterally informed that the OPP will abandon a 15-year commitment to investigate crime in the six area prisons in the Kingston area. The OPP staff of six top-notch investigators involved in the joint forces penitentiary squad will cost city taxpayers an additional $1 million annually.

Neither the chief of police nor the police services board were advised of this. City Police Chief Closs stated to the Whig-Standard, "We were stunned by the announcement" without even waiting for a high-level meeting that has been promised by the province.

Although the Solicitor General hastily asked the OPP to withdraw its letter and has agreed to further discuss the issue with city officials, undoubtedly the municipal taxpayers of my community will end up picking up more of these provincial costs. All the Solicitor General said was that "the letter was premature" and that the city should be footing a larger share of the bill.

This is another example where amalgamation and downloading is not only not saving the local taxpayers money, but is actually costing the local property taxpayers more money. My advice to the Solicitor General is to keep the joint forces penitentiary squad, continue to fund your officers to this force and stop the continual downloading of province-wide services to the local municipal property taxpayers.

SILVER BIRCH LITERATURE AWARDS PROGRAM

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I rise today to inform this House of my riding of Durham's participation in the Silver Birch literature awards program. This award is presented to the Canadian author of the book chosen as the most outstanding of the year by grade 4, 5 and 6 children across Ontario. In order to cast a vote, these children must read at least five of the books from the list of candidates in either the fiction or non-fiction categories.

This year's non-fiction titles include Alexander Graham Bell: An Inventive Life; Canada's Maple Leaf: The Story of Our Flag; and Meet the Group of Seven. This is an excellent program in many respects. It rewards children for reading by giving them direct input into the selection of the winners. It encourages our young people to read books such as those I have just mentioned which they might not otherwise have read.

The Silver Birch program also honours and encourages imaginative authors who create works that appeal to Ontario's children.

This program would not be possible without the hard work of the dedicated teacher-librarians who organize the program within their schools and encourage and assist the children in their participation. Some of the teacher-librarians in my riding of Durham who have contributed their efforts are Joan Butt of Cartwright public school, Pam Fis of Prince Albert public school, Stella Kranz of John XXIII, Coleen Power of R.H. Cornish, and Isabelle Hobbs of S.A. Cawker.

The official award for Ontario will presented in London on June 10. On June 12 there will be a luncheon in Durham. It will allow the children in my riding to meet the authors and the community leaders to discuss their reflections on the books.

I'd like to congratulate the teacher-librarians, the authors, the program coordinators and especially Ontario's children who participated, and thank them for their valuable input to the program.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): Many of us have stood in this place and have begged the Minister of Health to treat northerners as she does southerners when it comes to access to cancer treatment. Time after time, we get the bureaucratic response from this Minister of Health that the southern Ontario patients are being "re-referred," as she says, from their region because the treatment is not available locally. That's why southern Ontario patients get airfare, hotel and meals when they are sent to Thunder Bay and Sudbury for cancer treatment.

Northerners have never had access to many of the kinds of treatments locally in our area for years and years and have had to, historically, go to southern Ontario for treatment. But when that happens, we only get a one-way mileage allowance, not full expenses.

What's the real story here? Is it because southern Ontario patients never had to travel before, but do now because of the minister's mismanagement of the ministry, that the government feels obliged to pay the full cost,

whereas northerners, who have never had these services, have to take the lower form of compensation?

This makes us angry. You continue to treat us like a Third World colony. We, in the north, are sick and tired of being treated like dirt. If it's good enough to pay the full fare for southern Ontario patients who can't get treatment locally, then it should be good enough for northerners to get the same assistance. This is discrimination. You're providing benefits to one group of Ontarians and not to another based on where they reside in the province. This is wrong, and we will continue to fight until you bring fairness to all cancer patients across Ontario.

HALDIMAND-NORFOLK ECONOMY

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Recently, a prominent global company, Robin Hood Multifoods, known locally as Bick's Pickles, announced ambitious plans to relocate its processing facilities in the town of Dunnville, located in the east end of Haldimand. I know Minister Hudak is very heartened to have this development coming into Dunnville, as the $18-million investment will mean about 140 new full-time jobs for the area.

In October 1998, I had the pleasure of attending a previous expansion by Bick's in my riding with former Agriculture Minister Noble Villeneuve. At that time, Bick's had just finished the first phase of construction of a cucumber tank farm just outside of Delhi. Since then, the tank farm has expanded and is now employing five full-time staff and 15 seasonal employees, with 600 storage tanks holding up to 30 tonnes of cucumbers each.

It's encouraging to see companies like Bick's investing in rural Ontario. These investments in Haldimand and in Norfolk have provided a kick-start to the local economy. They're giving rural Ontario exactly what is needed-a way to diversify the economy and add value to agricultural products right at home.

There's no reason why farmers have to send their products down a highway to Toronto or London to be processed. There are plenty of opportunities for value-added processing in rural Ontario, and it's great to see Bick's Pickles capitalizing on these opportunities.

INTERGENERATIONAL WEEK

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): June is Seniors' Month and the first week has been designated as Intergenerational Week. As part of an International Year of the Older Person initiative, the Marmora Seniors Club 87 embarked on a project with students from the three community schools, Marmora Senior Public, Earl Prentice and Sacred Heart schools.

Students were asked to submit artwork that would depict their favourite activities with family members who are seniors. These beautiful pictures were then transferred on to fabric pieces, which the seniors took and pieced together to make four quilted hangings. On Saturday, June 3, the quilted hangings were presented at a special seniors' tea to the three retirement homes and one long-term-care facility in the village.

These quilts are absolutely beautiful. The artwork depicts children fishing and playing checkers with granddad, gardening and making cookies with grandma, as well as watching TV or going for a walk with the seniors in their lives. I know these lovely quilts will brighten the homes where they hang and bring a smile to the face of those who gaze on them.

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the children of the Marmora schools and the Marmora Seniors Club 87 for this great intergenerational project. It is an example of how youth and seniors can record in a permanent way the value of children in the lives of seniors and the value of seniors in the lives of children.

RIVERDALE YOUTH SINGERS

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): On Monday, June 5, I attended the spring concert of the Riverdale Youth Singers, entitled A Salute to Canada 2000. They honoured the arrival of the new millennium by singing songs to represent every province and territory in Canada. My favourite, I have to admit, was their fascinating, delightful rendition of "I'se the B'y," but every province was well represented.

This was an amazing group of children, from small ones who looked about eight or nine years old on up to teenagers. The conductor was Mark Bell. The drum player and piano player was John Govedas, who is a music teacher. They gave the audience-the parents and community members-an absolutely delightful evening.

This concert was free. It's something that volunteers do within the school: parents and, yes, teachers and community members who are trying to contribute to a full, holistic education for the children. It just goes to show, as I sat there relaxing and really enjoying this music, how important it is that we continue as a government to fund and contribute to arts and music in our schools and in our communities. I know that in this case, over a year ago a small group of interested people sat down and made plans and established this youth choir in Riverdale. I congratulate them.

NORTHUMBERLAND ECONOMY

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise in the House to bring to your attention some 500 full-time jobs that have been created in my riding of Northumberland.

Yesterday, a company by the name of Great Dane Limited Partnership Trailers announced the construction of their new trailer manufacturing facility in Quinte West. Construction is planned for later this summer and they expect to be in full operation come next year. Great Dane will be manufacturing approximately 6,000 trailers per year. It is estimated that the plant will employ some 500 people, and I understand that most of these jobs will be hired locally.

The president and chief operating officer for Great Dane is Mr Phillip Pines. Mr Pines and his company said they found Quinte West to be a community that meets their strategic and corporate needs. Essentially, it was the co-operation of the newly amalgamated city of Quinte West and the hard work ethic of rural Ontarians that attracted Great Dane to the area. As the chair of the Task Force on Rural Economic Renewal, I am extremely pleased to hear that the excellent workforce in rural Ontario was recognized by Great Dane.

I extend my congratulations to Mayor Jack Arthur and his council and staff for doing such a marvellous job in welcoming Great Dane Limited Partnership into the community.

MEDICAL OFFICERS OF HEALTH

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): I believe the public safety of my constituents is being jeopardized because the main focus of the Harris revolution is tax cuts, downsize and download. Sarnia-Lambton has a population of 120,000 people and we do not have a full-time medical officer of health. Our officer of health, Dr Greensmith, works on a consultative basis for two mornings a week. Chatham-Kent is in the same predicament. Dr Greensmith works in Chatham-Kent one morning every two weeks. That means that 230,000 people do not have a full-time officer of health.

This is yet another example of the fact that the provincial government is not interested in protecting the health and safety of our cities, towns and villages. Public medical officers of health are responsible for immunization, apprising the community of health risks such as dealing with outbreaks, and inspecting restaurants. They are also charged with testing our lakes and rivers in order to assess contamination for swimming.

The health and safety of the people of Sarnia-Lambton and Chatham-Kent are being jeopardized because of this government's policies and ducking responsibilities. The Ministry of Health will not answer our calls on this matter, and the Ministry of the Environment will not answer our questions.

JUDD SHEMESH

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): It is an honour for me to rise today in this House to tell you about a very gifted artist by the name of Judd Shemesh who is a constituent in my riding of Thornhill.

Mr Shemesh worked for the past two years creating a 55-centimeter-high glass crucifix for His Holiness Pope John Paul II. Mr Shemesh is scheduled to present his work to the Pope later this summer.

"Because the carving of the glass is all three-dimensional, when you look at it it's almost like His body is coming out from the glass," Shemesh said of his work entitled The Crucifixion.

Mr Shemesh, who was born in Iraq, was forced to flee with his family to Israel in the 1950s. He feels that his accomplishment expresses his heartfelt longing for religious harmony around the world in the new millennium. He said:

"Religion always separates people and you can count the number of wars and millions of people who died in those 2,000 years because of the differences in our religious beliefs. This is a small step from my part to bring religions together, to create unity among people, instead of separation. I created the cross as a piece of art in the symbol of Christians. It's for everybody because art is for everybody."

On behalf of the people of Thornhill, I would like to congratulate and recognize the artist Mr Judd Shemesh, who is with us in the Legislature today, and wish him the very best as he prepares to present this magnificent piece of art to His Holiness Pope John Paul II.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

1264030 ONTARIO INC. ACT, 2000

Mr Bartolucci moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr21,

An Act to revive 1264030 Ontario Inc.

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

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion regarding private members' public business.

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

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that, notwithstanding standing order 96(d), the following change be made to the ballot list for private members' public business: Mr Levac and Mr Colle exchange places in order of precedence such that Mr Levac assumes ballot item number 74 and Mr Colle assumes ballot item number 34.

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

Motions? Statements by ministries? That brings us now to oral questions.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We have been told that the Premier is going to be in the House. I wonder if somebody in the government can-

The Speaker: Yes, we did wrap up rather early through the proceedings, so they may not have been here. The chief government whip may be able to help us.

Hon Frank Klees (Minister without Portfolio): Cabinet did go a little bit longer than expected and we do expect the Premier.

The Speaker: The whip is going to try to find him.

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker, a matter arising out of yesterday's proceedings and the view of the opposition that the decorum that I know you're striving to achieve be well maintained in the House: We were concerned about the way it was applied yesterday and we're seeking your guidance, because a number of our members got last warnings and it didn't seem to appear that you were doing the same with the other side of the House. We are interested in working to ensure that the decorum I know you want to establish is established and maintained.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the member. We will attempt to do that. Just so all members are aware, one of the reasons we do that is so that we can get down to the questions that all of the members-in particular, as you know, the leader of the third party and the leader of the official opposition have the first questions. It's my hope that we can get down so that backbenchers on both sides, from all three parties, can get questions.

The alternative is for me to just stand here and let the clock run down. That isn't helpful to the members in the back benches because we don't get as many questions on. There are some days that are a little more controversial. I appreciate all the work because, quite frankly, the vast majority of the members on the vast majority of the days are very well behaved. I thank all members for that.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): Mr Speaker, are you apologizing?

The Speaker: No, I'm not apologizing. I will if you will, but you'd have to do it more than I would.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Maybe you can direct me on this. On Monday, June 5, I asked the Premier a question regarding Ontario Realty Corp. You can explain if there's a process for this, but part of his answer was that he didn't know the answer for me but that he would get the answer for me on the question I asked. That's in Hansard itself. It says, "I'd be glad to get the answer." Is there a process for follow-up on that, where the Premier would have to respond when he makes that statement in the House?

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): No, but we take the ministers or the Premier at their word that they will get that information for a member as soon as possible. I'm sure that will happen.

The Premier's now here.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): The question is to the Premier. Premier, this morning you had to apologize for yesterday smearing the community of Walkerton. This is a community that is struggling to overcome human tragedy, a community that has lost seven of its own, a community that is experiencing a very painful recovery, a community that is frustrated by the fact that it's going to take another six to eight weeks just to get the water turned back on, a community that's very concerned about their financial losses, and especially concerned about the long-term prospects for tourism potential.

Yesterday you added to their burden by accusing them of not getting their priorities right, by telling them that they didn't make water safety and their water treatment plant a real priority. You apologized for that because you had no choice but to do that.

What has really frustrated the people of Walkerton, though, from the outset is your refusal to issue another kind of apology. They want you to stand up and take responsibility for this tragedy. They want you to stand up and say: "It is my government's duty to make sure that water is safe for everybody in the province of Ontario. That did not happen in your case, people of Walkerton. We failed in living up to our responsibility, and so, on behalf of my government, I, the Premier of Ontario, apologize." Will you do that now, Premier? Will you stand up and make that apology for the people of Walkerton?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think I have certainly clearly acknowledged that what occurred in Walkerton is a tragedy. Immediately, our government has put into place inquiries and procedures to find out what went wrong, how it went wrong, with a view to two aspects: one, to make sure we can hold those accountable who should be held accountable. Certainly, contrary to what the member has said, I have not been one-or tried very hard; I know that's not the perception of everybody-to assess blame, but to have a process to take a look at what went wrong and how it went wrong.

Second, in answer to the majority of the

preamble of the leader's question, I talked with the mayor of Walkerton today and offered him my apologies for misinformation, really, that we provided to the media yesterday. He understood exactly, was very supportive of the action we've taken. He said, "Mr Premier, I want you to pass on to the Ministry of Environment that we're very enthusiastic about the provincial response and we're very supportive of the efforts that you've taken to date."

Mr McGuinty: Premier, one of the comments you made yesterday to the media when you talked about infrastructure and the priority that your government is lending to that, in particular your SuperBuild program, was that you're making a real priority of areas of sewer and water. I happen to have in my hand a copy of a letter dated May 26 of this year from the Ontario Sewer and Watermain Construction Association. This letter came as a follow-up to a meeting with David Lindsay, who heads up the SuperBuild Corp.

In the very first paragraph of this letter it says, "We were disappointed to hear that water and sewage infrastructure is not a primary target area for the infrastructure programs developed by the province."

We're just trying to figure out where the Premier is really at when it comes to making water treatment and sewage treatment in Ontario a real priority, because he said one thing to the media, but somebody who's on the inside when it comes to this issue, who had a meeting with the SuperBuild fund representatives, tells us that this is not a priority. Maybe we'll allow the Premier now to tell the people of Ontario where he's coming from on this issue.

Hon Mr Harris: I appreciate the opportunity. I indicated very clearly on Monday on the radio show-not to assess blame, I think was the way I prefaced my comments, because approvals of our infrastructure programs have been municipal, provincial and federal. I indicated a sense that perhaps in these federal-provincial infrastructure programs that have provided over $2.6 billion-

Mr McGuinty: SuperBuild is yours.

Hon Mr Harris: I'm sorry; if you'd like to hear the answer, I'd be glad to give it.

Very clearly, to a question in the wake of Walkerton, which was, "Is it time to reassess priorities?" I said, "Yes, I think it is." I think the Prime Minister indicated the same thing, although we hadn't talked. So SuperBuild, which will participate in the new infrastructure program and in the negotiations with the federal government-I made it very clear on Monday, and the Prime Minister has made it very clear, that we intend to put a higher priority on areas of sewer and water. I would think that would be good news across the country.

Mr McGuinty: The Premier says that it took this tragedy for him to begin to reassess his priorities. Why didn't you reassess your priorities when the Provincial Auditor warned you about the state of water in Ontario? Why didn't you reassess your priorities when the Environmental Commissioner warned you? Why didn't you reassess your priorities when your own officials in the Ministry of the Environment found there was E coli back in 1998? Why didn't you reassess your priorities in the early part of this year, when your officials in your ministry found out that there was a problem with water in Walkerton?

It's too late. The horses are outside the barn and the door has been closed behind them. You should have reassessed your priorities a long time ago.

What are you going to do, Premier? Tell us in a specific way, what are you now going to do to ensure that your SuperBuild fund-don't tell me about any other joint infrastructure programs; tell me what you're going to do with regard to your SuperBuild fund to make water and sewage programs a real priority.

Hon Mr Harris: I think the member ignores that while the last federal-provincial infrastructure program was targeted more at transportation infrastructure than at sewer and water, we had a special $200-million program aimed directly at water and water quality. What we have indicated, because that program is now coming to an end and SuperBuild is now taking over the negotiations with the-

Interjections.

Hon Mr Harris: If the members don't want to hear-it's very difficult, Mr Speaker, with the screaming and yelling and rude interruptions, for me to relay the information. If the members don't want to hear it, I can tell the public directly.

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): Premier, on May 29, when you were asked about cuts to the Ministry of the Environment and reductions in inspections, you told this Legislature: "To suggest that this has been responsible for fewer inspections-it's not true. We've had as many tests as we've always had; we've had the same procedures in place."

Premier, I'm trying to figure out once again who I should believe, you or your new Environmental Commissioner, your own hand-picked man, who said the other night that he is "very concerned" about your government's reduction to the frequency of water plant inspections. He tells us that they've been reduced; you tell us that nothing has been changed. Once again, Premier, who's right?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I guess that's why we want an investigation, to take a look at some of the allegations that have been made by some. I indicated very clearly and I assured the House and I reassure you now that there have been no changes to the frequency of tests that are required by municipalities, no changes in procedures to be followed with those tests. Absolutely nothing has been reduced in those areas. I also indicated that there has been no reduction in the front-line officers.

Has there been a change in procedures to prioritize within the Ministry of the Environment? That may very well be. That's another question and I am happy to answer it should you wish to ask.

Mr McGuinty: I suggest that the Premier at some point in time take the time to sit down with officials from the Ministry of the Environment and sit down with his own hand-picked Environmental Commissioner and find out exactly what's happening in Ontario in terms of frequency of inspections.

This is what Gordon Miller said the other day: "Years ago when I was in the ministry we used to try to inspect them once a year. But then when the auditor's report came out a few years ago, I know the ministry instilled a once-every-two-year inspection frequency. Now I hear this week discussion about, you know, the reporting frequency was once every three years"-once every year, once every two years on your watch, Premier, and now according to the Environmental Commissioner water systems are being inspected under Mike Harris's Ontario once every three years.

Why is it, Premier, that you insist on telling us that no changes were made to the frequency of inspections on your watch when your own officials inside the ministry and your Environmental Commissioner are telling us something completely different?

Hon Mr Harris: I don't recall being asked about the frequency of inspections. I was asked about the frequency of testing, I was asked about the procedures, I was asked about all those, and I indicated that those were the same. If you wish to get information on the frequency of inspections and the history of that, I'm sure the Minister of the Environment would be happy to respond.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, I want to again remind you of what you said in response to a question about cuts to the Ministry of the Environment and reductions in inspections. You said: "To suggest that this has been responsible for fewer inspections-it's not true. We've had as many tests as we've always had; we've had the same procedures in place." Will you now admit that that is not true, that we have fewer inspections today than we had in years past and the reason we have fewer inspections today is because of something that you have done inside your ministry?

Your spin keeps getting in the way of the facts. One of the most frustrating things for the people of Walkerton and the people of Ontario is that you just won't own up to the truth in these matters. First you blame the NDP, then you blame human error, then you blame the community of Walkerton and now you're saying no, there never were any reductions in inspections, when the facts tell us that something is completely different. There has been a reduction in inspections. Premier, why don't you just admit that?

Hon Mr Harris: I'm sure the minister can respond to the frequency of inspections and the intensity in some areas and the priority areas, if that is the area that he wishes to follow. But I'm happy to repeat-I won't do it word for word but it will be the same as the response I gave about testing-there is absolutely no change to the number of tests required or the procedures to be followed with those tests. That's what I said in response to that question.

WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Yesterday you and your Minister of the Environment tried to blame the municipalities of Ontario for the tragedy in Walkerton and for the polluted water crisis. You and your Minister of the Environment tried to say and tried to have the people of Ontario believe that Ontario municipalities were being irresponsible, that they weren't making thoughtful investments in water and sewer projects. That information is completely untrue.

The last year for which the information is available, 1997, the municipalities across this province invested a total of $2.85 billion in water and sewer programs. Meanwhile, your Ministry of the Environment could only find $240 million. They put up 10 times the amount of money your government did, so it's completely false information.

Premier, do you still have confidence in a Minister of the Environment who so blatantly puts forward information that is so obviously untrue?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I guess anything goes and you can say whatever you want when you're in opposition. Let me say that clearly the premise-

Interjections.

Hon Mr Harris: If the members don't want to hear the answer, I'm happy to talk to the public.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The leader of the third party used the expression "patently untrue" relating to a statement by the Minister of the Environment. He should withdraw that, in my submission.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member will know that sometimes I miss things. At that particular time I was looking at someone else. I will try to listen carefully. I did miss what was said, but the member can withdraw it on his own if he wants to. Supplementary.

Mr Hampton: Premier, not only that, but we also have the information for 1996, and so I want to ask you about that. In 1996 the municipalities of Ontario invested $2.68 billion in water and sewer projects. They increased that in 1997 to $2.86 billion. Let's look at what your Ministry of the Environment did. In 1996 they had $369 million available for sewer and water investment. In 1997 they cut it back to $240 million.

So the reality is quite the opposite of what you and the Minister of the Environment tried to present yesterday. In reality, municipalities have been increasing their investment in water and sewer projects as your government has been cutting them back. My question remains the same: Do you still have confidence in a Minister of the Environment who presented information yesterday to the public that is so obviously not true?

The Speaker: This time I was listening. The member can't say something like that. He can rephrase it in another way; he can't say it like that.

Mr Hampton: Do you still have confidence in a Minister of the Environment who presented information to the public that was so obviously incorrect?

Hon Mr Harris: I think I made it very clear that the information I gave to the media on Monday is the information that was incorrect. I have apologized for that and corrected the record.

I believe the information the minister gave dealt with the special program of $200 million that was made available to municipalities at the same time as we offered $2.5 billion of tax room in exchange for municipalities taking over sewer and water. The responsibility for sewer and water is now 100% the municipal responsibility, as you know. However, we did make available to them in that transition, in addition to $2.5 billion of tax room each and every year, an additional $200 million.

Now I have indicated, and I'm pleased that the Prime Minister of Canada indicated as well, that as we look at our infrastructure programs-federal, provincial and municipal-we ought to put new priority into sewer and water as well before we get to some of the other priorities.

Mr Hampton: I did get one acknowledgement there. We finally got an acknowledgement that this government did download the responsibility for water and sewer on to municipalities, and that at the same time, you were cutting your budget devoted to sewer and water projects and to the protection of Ontario's water supply. We're finally starting to get somewhere.

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [Children]): You're lying.

Mr Hampton: Premier-

The Speaker: Member take his seat. Minister, I did hear that. You have to withdraw that.

Hon Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, is there a different standard for the leader of the third party-

The Speaker: No, Minister. Sit down. Either you withdraw it or you do not. Last warning and I will name you. I heard you. On some occasions I do not hear things; that time I did. I heard you distinctly. Last warning or I'll name you. Either you withdraw it or I have to name you.

Hon Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, I'll withdraw it.

The Speaker: Thank you. Leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: Premier, our point is this: I don't know how you can have confidence in a minister who has from the very beginning been so completely incompetent on this issue and has so incompetently provided information that is incorrect to the public.

I want to ask you another question. This is about a community, Bruce Mines, that two years ago applied to your so-called provincial water protection fund because they realized that there were problems with their water system. Your provincial water protection fund turned them down. So Bruce Mines today has a boil-water directive because their water is now polluted. Premier, this is the same provincial water protection fund that your government said earlier it was going to eliminate this year.

Is it now your position, since you intended to eliminate this program, that your government has no responsibility whatsoever for the quality of drinking water in this province? Under your new rules, is that exclusively a provincial responsibility? If it's the case that it's strictly a municipal responsibility, why don't you ask for the resignation of your Minister of the Environment, because he's clearly not doing the job for anyone?

Hon Mr Harris: Of course clean water is a significant responsibility of the provincial government. It is a significant responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment. We take that responsibility very seriously. As you know, the municipalities asked us to give them $2.5 billion of tax room, to give them ongoing dollars each and every year so they could deal with that, and at the same time asked us if we'd take on more responsibility for things like education. We responded to that.

But in addition, we have responded through community reinvestment funds for those municipalities that have additional challenges; we've responded through a special $200-million infrastructure program, which is coming to an end, as you have indicated, which is why we are now looking at a new infrastructure program with SuperBuild. We're talking with the federal government in other areas where we would like to be able to ensure that if there are still municipalities that need assistance over and above the $2.5 billion of tax room, over and above the CRF funding, we might be able to accommodate those requests.

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): It's interesting: Yesterday the Premier was blaming the municipalities; today he admits they might need some help.

This question is for the Premier again. The other part of the equation is when you downloaded water and sewer, you also laid off 900 scientists, technicians and inspectors at the Ministry of the Environment who were there to protect the water and there to ensure water quality. The assistant Deputy Minister of the Environment at the time actually wrote a memo and she said that the layoffs at MOE, "will have an obvious impact in the amount of work we can accomplish." That was in 1997, three years ago. Now you and your Minister of the Environment have the gall to march around the province saying: "Nothing has changed. There is no impact."

Premier, people have died. That's been the impact. At least seven people have died from this, possibly 11. Thousands more are ill. Don't you think it's time that you and your government stop blaming one person one day, someone else the next day, municipalities the next day, and admit that you have a responsibility to ensure safe, clean drinking water for the province, and that you have a responsibility to get a new Minister of the Environment, a new agenda and a new budget so that your government can do that? Would you admit that, Premier?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I am certainly proud to have been elected and accepted the responsibility for ensuring clean drinking water across this province, a matter we take very, very seriously. In view of the events of Walkerton, when you say that everything has worked perfectly, I think it's pretty patently obvious that it has not. That's why we have a review by the Ministry of the Environment, the Environmental Commissioner may take a look at it, we have a police investigation, we have a coroner's inquest and now we have a full-blown public inquiry to take a look at that.

One of the reasons we were elected was because we had a whole government of incompetence and we had a mess to clean up. We're doing the best we can.

Mr Hampton: Premier, you say that your government has taken these issues seriously. The medical officer of health for the Walkerton area now tells us that on top of the seven deaths for sure, possibly 11, as many as 2,000 people became ill from that polluted water. You say that you took this seriously. Well, Premier, in January of this year, Garry Palmateer, one of those scientists that you laid off because protecting the water wasn't important any more started advising officials in your Ministry of the Environment of the problems with the water supply.

In fact, he notified the MOE five times in January, February and March. It wasn't until April that your government responded, and they responded by making a phone call to Walkerton. That's how seriously you take protecting the province's water supply.

Premier, in my view, your government and your Minister of the Environment have failed the test. Will you do the right thing for the people of Ontario: Get a new Minister of the Environment who's prepared to protect our water supply? Would you give that Minister of the Environment a new mandate and, please, Premier, a budget so that he or she can protect the water supply of Ontario? Can you do at least that, Premier?

Hon Mr Harris: Let me thank the member very much for his views. They're very important and we take the views of all Ontarians very seriously, particularly the views of the member and the leader of the third party, who was substantially responsible collectively for the deficits and the messes that we inherited.

Let me say that I have every bit of confidence in this minister to get to the bottom of what went wrong in Walkerton. We have other independent, outside investigations. Any views that you have I'm sure would be welcomed by the soon-to-be-appointed commissioner and the OPP and the coroner's inquest. Certainly I will ask the ministry in its review to take your views under advisement as well. I thank the member for that.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question to the Premier. Premier, when you visited Walkerton shortly after the tragedy broke, you left-and I can't recall your exact words-the very distinct impression that no procedures, when it came to water safety in Ontario, had changed on your watch. You talked a moment ago about testing. Let's set that problem aside for a moment and let's focus on the frequency of inspections.

Can you tell us whether or not, Premier, given your own Environment Commissioner's information that he has provided on this issue, there are fewer inspections today than there were in 1995, for example, inspections conducted by a representative of the Ministry of the Environment who goes into a community and looks at the water treatment plant to make sure that everything is operating safely for the people who live in that community? Can you tell us whether or not there are fewer inspections today than there were in 1995?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Minister of the Environment could better respond.

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): Inspections of water facilities occur in this province about once every three years. Facilities are checked; they're inspected on a priority basis so that those needing inspection get inspection. In fact, the new regulation I brought forward last Monday calls for certificates of approval to be reviewed for all facilities, and that would include inspections of all of the water facilities in our province. I would expect that review of those certificates of approval and inspections to be conducted by the end of this year.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, this is a very important question. People throughout Ontario want to know the answer. How often is their local water treatment plant being inspected? It's a simple question. The Environmental Commissioner tells us it used to be once a year, and then it was once every two years, and now, according to his information, it's once every three years. Stand up and tell us: Is that true? Has the frequency been diminished on your watch? How often today in Ontario are water treatment plants being inspected?

Hon Mr Newman: I'll answer the same question again, the same way I answered it the first time. Water facilities in this province are inspected approximately once every three years. They are done on a priority basis, so those that need inspection get that inspection.

I also indicated that in the regulation that will be coming forward there is a review of certificates of approval. All certificates of approval will be reviewed. There will be inspections of the facilities in conjunction with the review of the certificates of approval. We're going to go beyond that to ensure that all certificates of approval for water facilities are reviewed at least once every three years.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Minister of Education. This week the government is holding public hearings on Bill 74, the Education Accountability Act. I refer to this because in a recent press release on this bill the member for Parkdale-High Park is complaining that there is not enough committee time, and he talks about hiding legislation.

I would just like to bring to your attention here that in our first term, the 36th Parliament, we had 800 hours of consultation outside of Queen's Park; the Rae government, 650; and the Peterson government less than half, at 350.

He goes on to say that this government has cut $1.6 billion from education funding. He also says that Bill 74 will see a further reduction in funding.

Minister, it's important to the people in my riding to know-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Will the member take his seat, please. We'll just wait. I will remind the members that the longer I have to stay here, the fewer questions will be asked by all of the members on all sides.

Member for Northumberland.

Mr Galt: In

summary, the member for Parkdale-High Park is saying that this government has cut $1.6 billion from education funding. He also says that Bill 74 will see a further reduction in funding.

Minister, it's pretty important to the constituents in my riding to know, is this an accurate claim from the member across the floor?

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): She's afraid to debate me.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): The member for Parkdale-High Park says we're afraid to debate him. It's too bad he didn't listen the last time I did debate him on these numbers.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Just so the members know, if I can't hear, I will simply stand up, the clock will wind down, and nobody on either side is going to get any questions. Quite frankly, it doesn't matter to me at all. Members have every opportunity, and all they need to do is behave and we can get as many questions on as possible. But if you yell and scream at each other, then we'll try this and we will see if standing here for the entire hour will make the members behave, because I cannot continue as long as you're screaming across and I can't hear the question or the answer.

Sorry for the interruption. The Minister of Education.

Hon Mrs Ecker: The member for Parkdale-High Park says that I refuse to debate him on the numbers in education. I could have sworn I saw him sitting across from me at the table at estimates when we actually had this discussion. He obviously doesn't remember. He obviously doesn't remember the briefing that we gave him. When we came into government, we were spending $12.9 billion on education. We are now spending over $13.5 billion. Even with the new math, that's an increase.

I think it's also important to know that those new dollars are going into the priority areas that many groups in my consultations and meetings I've had, and continue to have, said were important: more money for special needs, more money for smaller class sizes, more money for more teachers, more money for principals, more money for textbooks, more money for extra help for students who are having difficulty with the new curriculum. So there is more money, and more money in the classroom for priorities that parents and teachers said needed-

The Speaker: The minister's time is up.

Mr Galt: Thank you, Minister, for that response. I'm certainly very proud that our government is enhancing key priority areas that I know make a big difference to the constituents in my riding. I really don't understand, with that answer, where the member for Parkdale-High Park is coming from. This press release also says that it proposes to dilute education and that Bill 74 will increase overall pupil-teacher ratios, and I just don't understand where he's coming from at all. Is this information reflecting any truth?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Again, I appreciate the opportunity to make sure the correct information is on the record here for the public. We know there have been many claims around this legislation, as there have been around every legislative change we've made in education, great claims from across the way that it's the end of civilization as we know it. We have certainly heard from parents and teachers that class size is very important to them. They see it as an important quality indicator.

That's why two years ago we set the first standards for class size, and now what we propose to do in Bill 74 is to bring class size down yet again, both in the elementary and the secondary panel. We've already put out the money that will make that happen. It's also important to note that if a board is not meeting those class size standards, Bill 74 gives parents the opportunity to make a complaint about that so we can investigate, so we can make sure that the benefits of our educational quality reforms are passed down to the teachers and the students in our classroom.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. You're telling us now, we understand now, that there has been a reduction in the frequency of inspections for water treatment plants in Ontario. We now know that. Now you're telling us that when those inspections are made, they are made on a priority basis.

Can you tell us why, then, after you learned about E coli in the water of Walkerton in 1998 and you learned about coliform in the water on two separate occasions between January and April of this year-if that doesn't make this water treatment plant a priority, I don't know what does. Tell us why, then, after you had that information inside your ministry, you did not inspect this plant.

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): Every water treatment facility in this province is inspected approximately once every three years. It's done on a priority basis. Ministry staff have contacted those facilities. If a facility is not in compliance, a field order is issued which is very specific and outlines what measures need to be taken.

With respect to any particular facility, and the one in particular the member is talking about, there are investi gations underway. There is the coroner's inquest, there is the investigation from the Ministry of the Environment through the investigations and enforcement branch, there's the OPP investigation and there is the public inquiry. We all want answers. That's what the people of Walkerton want and that's what the people of Ontario want.

Mr McGuinty: Let's get this perfectly straight. We had these huge, bright-red flares that were sent up from the Walkerton water treatment plant: In 1998, they found E coli; you knew it. This year, in the year 2000, between January and April, they find coliform on at least two separate occasions; you knew it. Tell us again, why is it that that did not constitute a priority when it came to an inspection? If you don't inspect under those circumstances, then you're telling us, as far as we're concerned, that you attach no real priority to water safety in Ontario.

Hon Mr Newman: Again, the facilities are inspected approximately once every three years. They're done on a priority basis. That's how the inspections are carried out. If a facility is not in compliance, field orders are issued. Ministry staff ensure that those measures that are outlined in the field order are brought forward.

The member now is talking E coli, he's talking total coliform; he's jumbling many of the issues in this respect. The bottom line is that there are investigations underway. There's the coroner's inquest, there's the Ministry of the Environment's investigation through the investigations and enforcement branch, there's the OPP investigation and there's the public inquiry. We all want to get to the bottom of this and we want answers. That's what it's all about.

CROWN ATTORNEYS

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is for the Attorney General. This government recently hired 59 new crown attorneys. My riding of Peterborough was included in the ridings that received new attorneys. How does this hiring of 59 new crown attorneys ensure that proper resources are being allocated to prosecute cases in the criminal court system?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): This government has been clear that its priorities are to create safer communities and to improve the criminal justice system through the vigorous prosecution of crime, preserving public order and safety and supporting victims of crime. We believe people have the right to be safe and feel safe in their own communities.

In the spring of 1998, the May-Iles inquiry released its recommendations. One of those important recommendations was to increase interview time of victims and witnesses for crown attorneys. The government recognized that recommendation and the finance minister allowed $8 million per fiscal year in May of last year, in the budget of that year, for additional crown attorneys.

Fifty-nine new crown attorneys have been appointed across the province, including in Windsor, Timmins, Barrie and the member's riding of Peterborough. As a result of all that, crown counsel in the field are now provided with a full day of prescheduled time each week to interview victims and witnesses in the Ontario Court of Justice. The number of crown attorneys in Ontario is at its highest level in history at 630, representing an increase of nearly 78% from 1989. Strengthening the way the justice system works-

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

Mr Stewart: I'm pleased that this government hired the 59 new crown attorneys to promote efficiency and effectiveness in the criminal justice system. But last April, the Criminal Justice Review Committee presented its recommendations for practical solutions to increase the efficiency of the criminal courts. What is the status of the implementation of the committee's recommendations?

Hon Mr Flaherty: Ensuring that Ontarians have an effective and efficient justice system is a priority for this government. That is why we're working hard to implement the recommendations of the Criminal Justice Review Committee. Local best practices identified and recommended by the committee have been incorporated into the day-to-day operations of the criminal law division. For example, we are now assigning two crown attorneys to busy bail courts. Recommendations related to specialized courts have been implemented through the expansion, the duplication, the doubling of domestic violence courts.

We have referred recommendations for an enhanced use of technology to increase public safety, to obtain more comprehensive management information and to close information gaps in the criminal justice system to the court services division for implementation.

The goal of all of this is to make sure that the people of Ontario are safe and feel safe in their own communities.

WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): To the Minister of the Environment: I'm going to come back to Bruce Mines because the Premier's answer was inadequate.

Bruce Mines is now under a "boil water" order that is expected to last up to one and a half years. This is a community that knew it had a problem, a community that let you, the Minister of the Environment, know it had a problem. It applied to your ministry for funding to fix the problem and your ministry turned them down. The Premier just admitted that your water and sewer money is completely disappearing next year, that you've downloaded it completely.

Minister, are you going to take responsibility today for the "boil water" problem in Bruce Mines? Are you going to pay for the water that they now need for perhaps up to a year and a half, and are you going to put the money in that they need to fix the system?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): I think the government's position has always been clear. Municipalities are, and have always been, responsible for the delivery of water and the sewage systems in their communities. The transfer of ownership that occurred will serve to clarify the role municipalities have to play as the service delivery agent. The province will focus on its role of setting and enforcing standards to ensure that drinking water is safe and that sewage disposal does not harm the environment.

With respect to Bruce Mines, I can tell you that officials from the Ontario Clean Water Agency phoned the ministry office in Sault Ste Marie on May 25 regarding this matter. There was a field order put in place on May 31. There was a precautionary "boil water" advisory placement. I should also note that sample results received on June 2 showed no coliform counts in that water.

Ms Churley: He still didn't answer my question. I asked the minister, and I'll ask him again, why when there is still money in the water protection fund that is supposed to be there to help municipalities in these emergency situations, and this community came forward and said, "We've got a problem with our water"-they took it seriously, they took responsibility, they asked for your assistance from the fund that was there-you turned them down? Why did you turn them down? Minister, I ask you again, what are you going to do to help the people in this community during this time when they're on a "boil water" order?

Are you going to release funds immediately to help them pay for the water they're going to have to buy and are you going to release funds immediately to fix their system?

Hon Mr Newman: The Ontario provincial water protection fund is in place with $200 million, originally to be over three years. We accelerated the money so that municipalities could have access to it over two years. Many municipalities applied for that program. The money is flowed in such a way that 85% of the money goes to those municipalities for those projects. There is about a 15% holdback until that work is completed, because we want to ensure that all the work is completed. But there is money, obviously, through the SuperBuild Corp for infrastructure in our province.

ONTARIO CLEAN WATER AGENCY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Minister, when your huge and damaging cuts to the Ministry of the Environment made communities across Ontario vulnerable to the kind of tragedy that unfortunately happened in Walkerton, where seven people died and 2,000 people are seriously ill, you were forced to turn to OCWA, the Ontario Clean Water Agency, a provincial government crown corporation, to rescue your government from the drinking water crisis in Walkerton. Because OCWA is a government agency, it's persona non grata with the Premier and his advisers.

Minister, why are you putting an agency that rescued you from total embarrassment in Walkerton on the auction block, trying to peddle it to the highest bidder in your effort to privatize anything and everything that provides a vital service to the people of Ontario?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): Yes, OCWA, the Ontario Clean Water Agency, is running the water treatment facilities in Walkerton; the town has called them in to do that. OCWA does that for many municipalities; I understand there are approximately 70 municipalities across the province of Ontario that have OCWA managing their water systems. They're there because they have the expertise, they're there because they have the know-how in ensuring there is the safe delivery of drinking water in this province.

Mr Bradley: That's no answer, of course. Minister, the Premier has blamed the NDP, he's blamed human error, he's blamed all the municipalities, he's blamed the town of Walkerton for not using provincial infrastructure money when we all know they did it; today he blamed his own staff. But let me tell you something about an agency that wouldn't do that. There's an agency that sets as its values: "being respectful of colleagues and clients; acting with integrity and fairness; delivering quality service to meet our clients' needs; collaborating through teamwork; and"-you'll like this-"accepting responsibility and being accountable for our actions."

OCWA states that its greatest strength is its unparalleled experience in the operation and maintenance of water and waste water facilities. OCWA's highly trained, fully certified staff provide reliable and cost-effective service and assume responsibility for the day-to-day operations of their clients' facilities.

Minister, will you now, in the interests of the safety of drinking water in Ontario, take the Ontario Clean Water Agency off the auction block and not turn it over to owners and operators whose prime preoccupation would be with making a profit?

Hon Mr Newman: The Ontario Clean Water Agency does a very good job at what it does, and that's providing management of water facilities in Ontario. As I indicated, there are some 70 municipalities throughout Ontario that use the services of the Ontario Clean Water Agency. Again, they were called in by the town to run the facility in Walkerton. They do a good job of ensuring that clean water is delivered to the people of Ontario.

TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. I understand that the 11th annual Ontario Technological Skills Competition took place recently in Kitchener. In fact, I was personally delighted to hear that one of my constituents, Laura McKay from Cambridge, earned the gold medal in the men's hairstyling competition. Min ister, what can you tell us about this year's competition and the government's commitment to training?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): Thank you for the question, from my colleague from Kitchener.

Congratulations to Laura McKay for her gold medal in the 11th Ontario Technological Skills Competition. In this House we should all be celebrating the opportunities our young people have to get the technological training they need to be competitive in the global economy. We're very proud to be a co-sponsor of the Ontario Technological Skills Competition. This competition is organized and supported by volunteer organizations of employers and teachers, educators and trainers. They're there and dedicated to help young people develop these workplace skills.

It's our opportunity today, with this question, to say thank you to the teachers, to the volunteers, to the employers, to the people in the workplaces who help these young people achieve their dreams. There were more than 700 apprentices in 38 different categories ranging from industrial writing to precision machining to hairstyling. We're very proud of the 11 gold winners.

Mr Martiniuk: This event sounds like an excellent way to promote careers in the skilled trades among young Ontarians. I hope this event will grow and involve even more participants next year. I believe that focusing on skills is not only important for the individual lives of our young people, but it's also vital to Ontario's long-term economic health. We have all heard about the increasing demand for skilled labour in our province. As our economy continues to grow, this demand is surely to grow too.

It is more important than ever that our young people have the skills and training necessary to keep up with technology and our competitors. Minister, what is the government doing to support a skilled workforce today and in the future?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Mr Speaker, just to correct, I would like to thank the member from, in fact, Cambridge.

I would like to thank him for many reasons; first of all, his great support of young people and the work that is going on in the schools and colleges in his own riding.

I think everyone knows about the Ontario youth apprenticeship program. It is in 61 school boards, 466 secondary schools, with 2,700 students now; thanks to leadership with the Minister of Education, 3,500 next year.

This is unprecedented. I've been in this House for 12 years, and it's very important that young people understand the opportunities in apprenticeship training. It's very important that their parents are part of the decision-making, that we have this kind of exposure and that we make the changes we've been able to make over the last three years so that we have 3,500 young people in our secondary schools being introduced to and getting credit for apprenticeship programs. That is a great success story.

RURAL ONTARIO

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. The policies of Mike Harris have resulted in a systemic attack on rural Ontario. In the quest for less government, Mike Harris has downloaded and abandoned the infrastructure and programs that help rural Ontario keep its water system safe. In the wake of this neglect, there are at least seven people dead.

In February I wrote to the Minister of the Environment and to you to say that rural Ontario should be able to count on safe, clean drinking water. That is your government's responsibility. I asked for an extension to the Ontario water protection fund that would give money to municipalities for safe water and sewage. Mr Newman told me: "All the money is allocated. Go find alternate and innovative funding sources."

Now here's an innovative solution: You must step in to help rural Ontario. In farm communities, people, water and animals have always coexisted safely until Mike Harris decided to get out of the water protection business.

Will you commit today to allocate direct funding to rural municipalities and farmers for safe water and sewage initiatives immediately?

Hon Ernie Hardeman (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I think it's very important that the government of Mike Harris and all of those members on this side of the House place a very high priority on the needs and requirements for rural Ontario. That's why a task force was sent out, the Task Force on Rural Economic Renewal, to see what the barriers were in rural Ontario. The task force came back and reported. From that report, the treasurer put in an infrastructure program, the OSTAR program, which is to deal with the needs of rural Ontario, and we will be setting up the framework for that.

That program will be of great benefit not only to the farming community but to all people who live in rural Ontario.

Mr Hoy: There were people who didn't know about your rural task force until two days after you were in their village.

Minister, the downloading, the budget and the staffing cuts to both the MOE and OMAFRA have struck at the heart of rural Ontario. You have abandoned farmers and rural communities. You've talked about Healthy Futures but no money has been spent except on advertising.

A group of apple growers asked your ministry for assistance through Healthy Futures to buy pasteurization equipment to ensure the safest possible product to the marketplace. It would have been used by many growers. You are aware that the last disease outbreak occurred in an isolated incident when young children visiting a farm drank untested, unpasteurized apple juice. These responsible growers are trying to ensure a safe product. Could you explain to this House why Healthy Futures, a program that is supposed to safeguard and protect, refused to even consider this project?

Hon Mr Hardeman: Thank you very much again for the question. I do want to correct the member opposite. In fact, the Healthy Futures program has allocated some $3 million to projects to deal with food safety, rural water quality and the expansion of markets, which was the very reason the Healthy Futures program was put in place.

I just want to assure the member that if an application has been made on behalf of the apple growers, that application will be reviewed by the panel of experts who are reviewing those applications, and I'm sure they will be making a recommendation as to whether that project should be funded. If it is, as the member suggests, a program to deal with the quality of our food, I'm sure that it will receive a very thorough and appropriate review and get the type of support that's required to make sure that we have the safest food not only in the province but in all of this country and all of the world. I think our consumers deserve nothing less.

ONTARIO PRODUCE

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): My question is also for the Minister of Agriculture. When consumers go into supermarkets today, they're given a multitude of choices when it comes to buying fresh fruit and vegetables. Certainly my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant provides a sizeable share of Ontario's apples, strawberries, blueberries, asparagus, cauliflower, sweet corn and potatoes, just to name a few of the fresh commodities our local farmers put on the table and provide to people in Ontario. Minister, what are we doing to support and promote Ontario-grown fruit and vegetables?

Hon Ernie Hardeman (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I want to thank the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant for the question. It's important for all members to remember that for Ontario consumers of fresh produce, the Foodland Ontario logo is the only universal symbol that clearly and immediately identifies Ontario produce from imports. Foodland Ontario provides material such as in-store signage and advertising to assure the consumer of the quality product that's produced in Ontario.

Every year Foodland Ontario recognizes outstanding retailers at their retail award event. Their efforts in promoting Ontario quality products on behalf of our consumers are appreciated, and we show that appreciation in that manner. Thank you very much for the question.

Mr Barrett: Farmers in my constituency have been relying on the Foodland Ontario program for a number of years to help market Ontario-grown fresh fruits and vegetables. Much of our area produce goes to the Ontario Food Terminal, and it's very important that government foster a robust business climate that supports the competitiveness of Ontario's producers in what has become a North American market. Could you please update us on how successful this important Foodland Ontario program is for Ontario producers?

Hon Mr Hardeman: The Foodland Ontario program has been a tremendous success over the last number of years in marketing the produce in Ontario. In order to make sure that we are meeting those goals, we do calculations or surveys to see how successful it is, and in fact a recent survey found that 84% of Ontarians recognize the Foodland logo and 88% have indicated they're favourably disposed to buying Ontario produce as a result of the activities of the Foodland Ontario consumer advertising program. Consumers have come to equate the Foodland logo with freshness, taste, quality and trust for our producers.

MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. I watched you in a scrum outside after question period yesterday repeatedly say that Walkerton did not apply for funding to deal with their sewer and water system. Repeatedly you said that. As it turns out, you were wrong. All along, throughout this whole crisis, I have heard you and your Premier, day after day, make excuses, give out misinformation, place blame and not once take responsibility for your cuts and your downloading and your privatization.

Minister, yesterday I called for your resignation. In light of the seriousness of this situation and your failure to live up to the duties and responsibilities of the Minister of the Environment, I am asking you, in all seriousness now, will you step down today?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): The member opposite is very selective in her facts and in the way that she presents them to this House. She takes words and puts them together. Those are not words that I spoke yesterday. I clearly said that the town of Walkerton had never applied for any money from the provincial water protection fund. That's what I said. Again, the member is being very selective in her presentation here today.

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the northern health travel grant was introduced in 1987 in recognition of the fact that northern Ontario residents are often forced to receive treatment outside their own communities because of the lack of available services; and

"Whereas the Ontario government acknowledged that the costs associated with that travel should not be fully borne by those residents and therefore that financial support should be provided by the Ontario government through the travel grant program; and

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

"Whereas the Ontario government has provided funds so that southern Ontario patients needing care at the Northwestern Ontario Cancer Centre have all their expenses paid while receiving treatment in the north which creates a double standard for health care delivery in the province; and

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

"Therefore, we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to acknowledge the unfairness and inadequacy of the northern health travel grant program and commit to a review of the program with a goal of providing 100% funding of the travel costs for residents needing care outside their communities until such time as that care is available in our communities."

This petition adds the names of several more constituents to the thousands who have already signed this petition in expression of their concern.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is signed by Paul Gledhill of St Catharines, Bill Klassen of Fonthill and hundreds of other people in the Niagara region.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ministry of Health announced a new model on January 25, 1996, for improving and coordinating long-term care services. The amalgamation of the home care and placement coordination services function did shift to community care access centres (CCACs). The governing bodies of various pension plans, namely the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement Savings (OMERS), Victorian Order of Nurses (VON), Family Services Association (FSA) and Hospital of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP) have failed to successfully negotiate agreements for a transfer of pension assets.

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

"That the pension adjustments are a transition item which the ministry has not yet addressed. We are requesting a one-time adjustment to enable the transfer of pension assets. This transfer is required to ensure that employees transferred from predecessor employers (namely health units and the Victorian Order of Nurses) to community care access centres as part of the mandatory government reform initiative for `single access to long-term-care services' receive pension benefits equal to those which they formerly enjoyed. Provincially over 3,000 health care workers are affected.

The individuals who transferred to the CCACs had no control over what would happen to their prior pension contributions. Unless a one-time adjustment is made to enable the transfer of reserves, the typical employee will lose about $2,000 annually in pension benefits compared to the position they would have been in had they been allowed to remain in OMERS."

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will sign my name to this petition.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

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

"Whereas the government of Ontario is actively pursuing private sector operators to run Ontario's correctional facilities, including adult, strict-discipline boot camps, three megajails and five young offender facilities;

"Whereas findings show there is no cost savings to the taxpayer of Ontario;

"Whereas public safety will be greatly jeopardized in our communities;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the government of Ontario abandon all plans to privatize any aspects of the province's correctional system."

That is signed by hundreds of residents from the Peterborough area.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey): I have a petition that was given to me by some people in my riding. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the government of Ontario is actively pursuing private sector operators to run Ontario's correctional facilities, including adult, strict-discipline boot camps, three megajails and five young offender facilities;

"Whereas findings show there is no cost savings to the taxpayers of Ontario;

"Whereas public safety will be greatly jeopardized in our communities;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the government of Ontario abandon all plans to privatize any aspect of the province's correctional system."

Signed by over 500 people from Penetanguishene-Midland, and I so affix my signature to it.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition that's signed by 165 secondary school teachers in Sudbury and area and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with these teachers and I have affixed my signature to the petition.

LORD'S PRAYER

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): As cabinet ministers are unable to present a petition, I am proud to present a petition on behalf of my minister, Tim Hudak, the member for Erie-Lincoln, which reads as follows:

"Whereas the Speaker of the Ontario Legislature has traditionally begun the daily business of the House by reading the Lord's Prayer to the members;

"Whereas in September 1999, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the readings of the Lord's Prayer at the council meetings of Penetang, Ontario, violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to:

"

(1) Continue the parliamentary tradition of beginning the start of the daily business in the House with the reading of the Lord's Prayer by the Speaker; and

"

(2) Vigorously defend the reading of the Lord's Prayer in the Ontario Legislature against any legal or constitutional challenge."

I'm proud to sign that because I support it as well.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature to this petition and present it to April Martin from Manitoulin Island, who will give it to the chair.

DURHAM COLLEGE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I have a petition here I am pleased to present on behalf of the Newcastle Ratepayers Association. It's signed by Murray Paterson and his wife, Marjorie, and by Dave and Pearl Rickard, as well as Frank Hoar, the secretary of the organization.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we request the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support Durham College in their bid for university status;

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

"We feel for the economic well-being of Durham region a university is necessary and the strong support of the bid by Durham College to achieve this status is supported and expected in the immediate future."

I'm pleased to sign and support this.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with this petition and urge the government to do the honourable thing and withdraw Bill 74. I have affixed my signature hereto in agreement.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature as I'm in complete agreement with the sentiments of this petition.

KARLA HOMOLKA

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's my pleasure to present a petition today on behalf of the member for Scarborough Centre.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

"That the government of Ontario will:

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

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

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

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

I'm pleased to sign and support this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BRIAN'S LAW (MENTAL HEALTH LEGISLATIVE REFORM), 2000 / LOI BRIAN DE 2000 SUR LA RÉFORME LÉGISLATIVE CONCERNANT LA SANTÉ MENTALE

Resuming the debate adjourned on June 6, 2000 on the motion for second reading of Bill 68,

An Act, in memory of Brian Smith, to amend the Mental Health Act and the Health Care Consent Act, 1996 / Projet de loi 68, Loi à la mémoire de Brian Smith modifiant la

Loi sur la santé mentale et la Loi de 1996 sur le consentement aux soins de santé.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We are at the "questions and comments" point of the speech from the member for Beaches-East York.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I want to commend my colleague from Beaches-East York, who is our health care critic, for the comments she made yesterday with respect to this bill. I want to actually commend her and all of the members of the committee who have been trying to deal with what is a very difficult, controversial piece of legislation where you have supporters from both sides who are very keen to see something done or in fact something not done with respect to this legislation. They have had a difficult task before them, and will as they continue through their process, but I want to thank all of them for their commitment to it at this point.

There are two things I want to focus on. First, the member talked through the course of the debate about the additional resources that are going to be needed in a number of areas if this bill is going to work. Those include additional police resources, because they have a change in their responsibilities under the act; probably additional resources for hospitals that have been affected by the commission's reports where there is downsizing, where we may well need more mental health care beds; a change in resources to the public guardian's office; and a huge change in resources in the community if you're going to actually be able to support the community treatment orders.

I say to the government, do you recognize the additional resources that are going to be needed if this bill is passed, and second, are you, as a government, committed to the financial resources to allow it to go into effect? I think those resources are going to be enormous. I haven't heard much from the government about their commitment to the resources in these many areas that will be required if this bill is at all going to work. I think the government has got to very clearly outline its commitment with respect to the financing of all this to make it happen.

Second, there are a number of amendments that we will table and we will see if the government will accept before we would agree to support this bill. Those include changes with respect to the

preamble, to the definition of mental illness, to the

section involving the new responsibilities of justices of the peace, safeguards with respect to the establishment of the CTOs etc. I hope the government that has tried to take some time to deal with this will take some time to deal with the amendments properly too, so we do this right.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's my pleasure to respond in the Bill 68 discussion. I suspect what I was listening to yesterday was trying to find that balance that respects the important issue of community safety as well as the issue of patients' rights. I think the bill has found at least a very, very tenuous balance between those two rights and entitlements.

On the community treatment orders, the most important thing that I see, without having a great deal of experience in the area, is the fact that the individual with the mental health concern will be able to stay in the community with the community supports. Minister Witmer yesterday, in her opening remarks, made a couple of statements that I believe are important with respect to the new format of delivery of mental health services in community treatment. I think it's very important, where possible, to deinstitutionalize people. That's certainly been the model in the last while.

Of course, Brian's Law, as we all know, comes from the inquest that was held as a result of Brian Smith's death, which recommended that these treatment orders be sort of mandatory. That's exactly what this bill is trying to do, to make sure that if a person has repeatedly experienced issues in the mental health area, has spent time in institutions, a community treatment order could be put in place that would require them to take their medication and treatment and therapy, as well as being allowed to spend time in the community.

I think there is a balance there that reflects both the needs of the citizens at large and those who have problems in the area of mental health. It's an important bill, it's a step forward, and I think that's exactly what-

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I too would like to comment on a statement that was made earlier, and that deals with the resources that have to be there for the outpatients to have the necessary services and the necessary community support programs to assist them in that regard.

It always reminds me of the situation that occurred some 20 years ago when the government went through another phase of the deinstitutionalization of a lot of psychiatric patients in my community of Kingston. My parents' home is located quite close to the Kingston Psychiatric Hospital. Over the years, I remember getting to know many of the patients who quite often used to wander through the village of Portsmouth, where I'm from.

Some years later, after the deinstitutionalization program had started, I happened to be out on a campaign-a mayoral campaign, as a matter of fact. I found that some of those same people that had had good care in the psychiatric hospital were housed in absolutely deplorable situations right in the downtown area of Kingston, sometimes three or four to a room, obviously lacking the care they required.

I say to myself, and I said at that time, it may be that we're all in favour of deinstitutionalization and we want to reintegrate everybody back into society, but weren't some of these people a lot better off when they were in an institution, where they had three square meals a day and a roof over their heads?

What I'm saying is that this program or any other program in the mental health field simply will not succeed if the government is not prepared to put the necessary resources out there so that the community services are out there for the people who will be taken out of the institutions. That's what this argument is really all about, not the fact that this kind of program is necessary but will it be properly funded?

Mr Brad Clark (Stoney Creek): It's fair to state that all of the participants from all spectrums, all of the stakeholders, raised the issue of resources consistently throughout all of the consultations and, I think it would be fair to state, throughout the hearings in the committee itself. The government has come a long way. We've received accolades from many people in terms of reinvesting $150 million into community mental health programs and $52 million into atypical drugs, which is new as of 1999.

We are committed to developing a mental health system which is cohesive, which is integrated, which is truly a continuum of care from the psychiatric facilities to the community. That statement of a continuum of care is what we're trying to accomplish. That means a bridge from the psychiatric facility, from the institution, to the community. We can't do that without building the supports in the community.

I've gone on the record consistently stating that we can legislate; that's the easy part sometimes. The hard

part is making sure that the resources are in the community. The hard

part is implementing it correctly, making sure that our intentions in the legislation become a reality in fact, that we actually do, through action, what we wanted to do in the words in the legislation.

I'm confident that the government is committed to that. I know the minister is committed to that; I know I'm committed to that. At this point we have to recognize that there are two components. One is the legislation itself, Brian's Law. The next phase after we proclaim it into law is the implementation. I have argued we should delay proclamation until we have the actual implementation program in place, to make sure that we meet the needs in the community.

The Acting Speaker: In response, the member for Beaches-East York.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): I appreciate the comments of all members who have participated. Most particularly, let me say to the parliamentary assistant that his words do give comfort in terms of his commitment with respect to this issue and his understanding, not just of the complexity of the legislation but of the job ahead, the complexity of implementation and the need for resources. He has more faith in this government than I do with respect to actually providing that. It's important to see his continued leadership on that.

Your comments that this bill can't be implemented without the resources being there make me feel a bit more confident. In fact, it makes me go out on a limb and suggest that I'm betting you're going to accept my amendment which creates within the legislation a list of a basket of services that need to be available in all communities. The actual services can be set out in regulation, but the regulating power to do that needs to be put within the legislation and we'll have an amendment on that. I think it'll be a test of whether or not there is a commitment.

The second thing that will be an important test is whether or not the government accepts the amendment to create the office of the mental health advocate, because the need for the systemic review, the need for the ongoing reports, the need to ensure that integration and the continuum of care is actually working and that these legislative amendments that we are contemplating are being implemented and matching the intent of the government to the target population that the government intends will be important for us all as legislators to follow and we need that systemic review to be done.

So I'm hopeful, by the parliamentary assistant's comments, that those areas will see support from the committee when it comes to amendments.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean): I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments with regard to Bill 68. I had originally intended to speak entirely, if I might, with regard to the individual whose name we honour in this act,

An Act, in memory of Brian Smith, to amend the Mental Health Act.

Before I deal with that aspect of it, I would be remiss if I didn't make a comment I would like to, because I had an opportunity to be in the House when the member for Beaches-East York made her comments yesterday. I commend her for her insight into not so much what we're doing here in terms of legislation but the effect on the people with whom we deal in this piece of legislation. In that regard, and in a non-partisan way, I also note the member for Ottawa Centre.

I think back to before I came to this House, his comments in the Ottawa area and the work with regard to this issue that the member for Ottawa Centre had put into attempting to make changes to the Mental Health Act, and I commend him for it.

I hate to be legalistic about things like this, but so many times in my lifetime when I have seen legislation that looked so perfect and so important-I think back to the day, and I commented the other night in the House here with regard to the Young Offenders Act and the giant step forward that that act represented in terms of dealing with problems of youth in our country and in particular this province and the improvement that act was on the old Juvenile Delinquents Act. I sit and criticize that act today, as do a number of others, and look for massive changes, but we weren't wrong in 1982-it was a gigantic step forward. And this is a gigantic step forward today.

I don't know if anybody has thought too long with regard to the implementation factors here. In particular, I'd like to refer to an opinion page item that appeared on April 28 in the Globe and Mail. It was written by Peter McKnight, a Toronto lawyer and ethicist who was formerly the acting chair of the advisory board of the former Queen Street Mental Health Centre, now part of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. He brought forward some contrary views and some important issues that are going to have to be addressed and that will cause tremendous concerns and hurdles to be overcome in the implementation of this act.

I don't want anybody to misinterpret what I'm saying. It doesn't in any way detract from my commitment to what we are doing here, but I think when one has heard the comments of the member for Beaches-East York yesterday, her understanding and her appreciation of the effect that this legislation is going to have on the streets of our cities-I haven't heard an appreciation of that aspect other than from our own member here, the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, who has had tremendous professional experience in the social welfare field in dealing with individuals this piece of legislation will directly affect.

I commend that

article to you. I think Mr McKnight, whom I don't know and had not heard of until I read this article, has a very clear appreciation of the difficulties that are to be faced in implementation of what we do here this week.

As I said at the beginning, I'd like to make a few comments with regard to the individual, Brian Smith, whose name is honoured in this legislation. As we've heard said here, Brian Smith was a well-known Ottawa sportscaster, a former professional hockey player who played in the National Hockey League, more famous probably for his stint in the American Hockey League where he played for Eddie Shore with the Springfield team-in servitude, I might add-and later played professional hockey in Europe before he became a sportscaster with station CJOH in Ottawa.

Mr Smith, as has been noted, was assassinated as he left the studio. I think it was August 1, 1995. The coroner's inquest that took place was most revealing and has led to much of what we do here with this piece of legislation.

I had the pleasure of knowing Brian. As a matter of fact, I knew Brian for I think about 47 of his 55 years. I met him on my first day of school as a five-and-a-half-year-old going to Corpus Christi school in the Glebe area. On the very first day we were dropped off, as was the norm then-no introduction, just day one and your parents left you there to fend for yourself. Brian was a year ahead of me, and the first lunch hour he was organizing the schoolyard. In those days the separate school system provided no kindergarten, simply from grade 1 to grade 9.

Brian's major concern was to have sufficient area for the smaller kids to have a play area and he was organizing that when we came out for lunch the very first day.

It was from that day on that we remained not the closest of friends but very good friends in our educational pursuits, from Corpus Christi to the high school

section of St Patrick's College. We attended the same church. We played baseball and hockey in the same city teams. We played football together at St Patrick's. And each and every time I seemed to turn around in life, I was coming into contact with Brian. For the next 48 years our lives interconnected in a number of ways. As well as the city leagues that organized us by way of where we lived, we ended up on Father Ferraro's famous baseball team at St Anthony's. We even played together on a team in Quebec, which was an interesting story in itself, over in Wrightville.

We joined the same golf club. We played at the same golf club when we were in high school, the Chaudière Club, just down the road from another establishment that we frequented as lovers of equestrianism. We ended up at the Ottawa Hunt Club together as members for a number of years, and we even played golf at the same golf club in Florida during the winter months.

What I have to tell you, and what I would like to make part of the record, is the real lesson of what Brian Smith was and what he stood for. He was described by his former teammate, the present coach of the Ottawa 67's, both at Springfield under Eddie Shore and later in the National Hockey League, as the most honest hockey player he had ever watched. It's an interesting comment in terms of a professional carrying out his duties in a hockey forum, but that was an excellent word that Mr Kilrea used to describe Brian.

He finished every check, he played two ways, he went up and down the wing and he did everything that he was supposed to do, by the book, never dodging it for a second. And that's the way he lived life. He was a tremendous individual.

I think back to my years practising law and on the bench, and it was not always a pleasant thing. It was an unfortunate thing to get a call from Brian when he was playing hockey over in Europe, or back home for the summer, when he was playing in the National Hockey League, because he didn't call for social reasons. He called when people were in trouble.

When a former teammate or a former classmate had difficulties, it was Brian who picked up the phoned, called, indicated the problem that he had heard, what was required and who should be contacted: "I'll phone this group and I'll get them to send the cheques to you. We'll use your trust account and we'll put a package of cash together and help the guy over the hump." So it wasn't necessarily good news, but it was always a positive venture when Brian would contact us.

Brian became a sportscaster in Ottawa. He went out of his way to use that position to help the youth of Ottawa and so many different charitable organizations.

He was the first person out of the studio after the local news at 7:02 on August 1, 1995, and that's why he received the bullet. The individual in question had no reason to choose Brian, the sportscaster at the station, over the news reader or anybody else. As a matter of fact, there was evidence at the coroner's inquest to indicate that one of the female reporters was in fact the individual who had triggered him to go to that station as opposed to one of the other stations.

Brian wasn't the first out very many nights. He would sit around and socialize with the individuals with whom he worked, but that particular night there was a charity tournament in the east end of the region. Brian had helped plug that tournament to make it a success and he was on his way to make the awards presentation. That's why he was out.

Thursday night in Ottawa: One of the organizational things that Brian had set his sights on was a fight night that raises money for the youth in the southwestern part of the city. Alderman Jim Bickford, a former deputy police chief, set up the organization that holds that fight night, and Brian was one of the individuals who went out of this way to make the first few a success. Of course, now, like so many of those things, it simply has to be called to be a success. People flock to it, but that wasn't the case when we were having the first organizational meetings.

Many of the people who will gather at fight night on Thursday will recall the efforts of Brian in putting this particular charity on the map.

As I thought back over the times that our lives had intertwined, I had a number of incidences and situations that I wanted to deal with. I made a few phone calls to individuals I hadn't spoken to in some time but who had been teammates and classmates back when we were going to school and I wound up with a number of so many interesting situations that I don't know where to start. But I wanted to tell about one particular incident after we had finished with Father Jerome Ferraro's ball team.

In those days in Ottawa, St Anthony's church was a hub of all good athletic activity and Father Ferraro was more than just the parish priest. He managed the team. He drove the bus on the tour when we went out of town to play a game.

During the last election campaign, I guess we were all asked that famous question, "Did you ever smoke pot?"

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): No, never, not even a cigarette.

Mr Guzzo: No. Well, I'll tell you, I had to say it. I had to say that, and the reporter who was asking the question looked at me in disbelief, "You've never had a cigarette?" I used to wear the odd cigar and so did Brian, fight fire with fire at the poker table or something, but never a cigarette, and when I was talking to an individual last night he said, "I read that at the time and I thought to myself, `Who else do I know who would say that?'" and of course he mentioned Smitty. Brian would have never touched a cigarette. It's not that we were perfect. Maybe steal a little mass wine from Father Ferraro or something like that but never a cigarette, never tobacco, nothing.

After we moved to play in Quebec one year as 15-year-olds, we were playing in a place called Wrightville-which doesn't exist anymore, it's part of Hull-but Wrightville had a lighted ball diamond, something Ottawa did not have in 1956. Indeed, there was one diamond in Wrightville, north of Hull, and there was another one 40 miles south in Russell, Ontario, but in between, nothing-a sad commentary.

Now, you probably think I'm going to tell you about a budding political career that was recognized by my teammates, but one of the anglais became the captain of that team, unable to speak a word of French, and that was Smitty. The type of recognition and the type of respect that he commanded-it was nothing that he said, only how he behaved, in that honest and decent manner in which he did everything that he came in contact with in life.

I have to think back to those days in the ball fields in Ottawa. The 1950s were interesting times. You people recall that a few months ago the Attorney General for this government stood in this House and apologized to the youngsters of the reform schools. Four or five years after a settlement had been reached in the lawsuit, the government of Ontario made its apology. But it was 45 or 50 years since the incidents had taken place.

As youngsters growing up there, we had experienced on a first-hand basis youngsters coming back from the training school at Alfred, bruised from their hip to their ear, welts the size of footballs, telling the stories of the sexual abuse that had been bestowed upon them by the operators of those schools. We know where they went with their stories. We know the newspaper people who watched us play and heard those stories. We know the people in authority who heard those stories in the 1950s. And 50 years later, we end up with the apology.

The last time I spent with Brian was in Plantation, Florida, at the golf club where we played the odd time in the winter months when a member of this House could get away. I didn't get away very much the first two years, I've got to tell you. We were approached by a retired police officer from the Fort Lauderdale force. He knew we were Canadians. He told us the story of a situation that had intrigued us-a story of a pedophile group in Cornwall that had made use of motels in Florida with youngsters some 35 and 30 years before. Smitty was getting very, very involved.

He was talking to individuals and becoming very, very active in that particular situation when he was struck down by that assassin's bullet. It was something that, had he gotten his teeth into it, we would have had more success in having brought to the fore.

When it does come forward, and it will-things like that and like the training school situation cannot be buried forever. The truth will come out, as Project Truth gets set for the fourth time to leave the city of Cornwall. The first time it left was in 1994. At a Christmas Eve press conference they announced that there were no charges and no evidence.

After the people of Cornwall put money together and did their own investigation, and Smitty put some money into that pot to help that investigation, we had Project Truth result in 114 new charges, 108 of which took place before the press conference on Christmas Eve 1994. When he went to his grave, he was becoming consumed with that particular situation and the similarity of that situation to the training school debacle that has haunted this province, and in particular my own community.

We have chosen an individual to honour with this bill who was more than a sportscaster and more than a hockey player. He was a tremendous citizen, and he was a hell of a friend. I thank the minister responsible for choosing this, and I say to Brian's mother and his two brothers and his widow that his life has contributed in so many ways to so many people, and it will continue to contribute as a result of this legislation, for which I thank you.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I appreciate the fact that, notwithstanding the member for Ottawa West-Nepean's personal knowledge of Brian Smith and his obvious grief at the loss of Brian Smith, he also recognized at the beginning of his comments that there are considerable concerns about this legislation and how it might indeed be implemented.

I thought the member might be interested in the conclusion of the testimony that was given to the committee by Alana Kainz, who is the widow of Brian Smith. She said:

"This could easily be called Jeffrey Arenburg's law. Jeffrey was a victim of a mental health law that failed him, too, when he shot Brian.

"There has been a small amount of opposition to naming this legislation after Brian. A handful are afraid that it sends a message that all people who are mentally ill are murderers.

"First of all, Brian was not murdered. I have come to terms with that. There were two victims here.

"Naming the law after one of the many victims puts a human face on the legislation and reminds us of its purpose.

"This is not about reacting to a serious event. It's about preventing one.

"This is not about the many people with borderline, very manageable illnesses. This is about the most seriously ill and the severe consequences of them being left untreated for a period of time."

I would add to that the testimony from David Goldbloom and Robert Zipursky, who are physicians-in-chief dealing with the seriously mentally ill. They said:

"It may also be argued that CTOs meet the government's political needs without requiring government to commit resources for the enhancement of community services. The issue of CTOs has resurfaced in the context of increased public concern which has resulted from a small number of horrific crimes which have been perpetrated by severely mentally ill individuals in our community and the increased visibility of the homeless mentally ill in our midst.

It is understandable that the public might be inclined to believe that these alarming problems would disappear if only we could force the severely mentally ill to stay on their medications. CTOs are not a panacea for these complex problems. They will not eliminate violence in our society.... They will not eliminate homelessness or even non-compliance amongst the mentally ill.... CTOs have the potential ... to help a small number of severely ill patients to live in the community with a level of health that would not otherwise be possible for them."

Ms Martel: I want to commend the member for Ottawa West-Nepean for his comments today to allow members of the assembly who did not know Brian Smith to know him in a way that we never could have from the media reports that were available at the time this terrible tragedy occurred. So I want to commend him for the very fine tribute he made today on behalf of this individual, and I'm sure his wife and mother and brothers and other family members and friends will be very proud and pleased that the comments were made and are on record.

But this bill is not only about Brian Smith; it's about the very tragic individual who killed him. As the member who just spoke talked about, it's about other victims of mental illness. It's about Lee Segarra from my community who at 23 died of exposure only a few feet away from his home. He was a manic-depressive. It's about all of the family and friends of all of these people who have suffered.

That's why, if we're going to do this right, if we're going to have a bill that pays tribute to all of them, to those who have suffered from mental illness and need treatment and to those families who have been at the receiving end when violent acts have taken place because people haven't received the treatment they needed, if we're going to do all of that, then we've got to do it right.

I would argue that to this point the government has taken the time through the committee process to try and hear from many representatives from both sides of the spectrum, to hear about their concerns, about their needs, about the amendments that have to be put. We find ourselves in a position where it is clear that there will be amendments from all three parties. I hope the government will take the time to deal with the amendments properly in a timely way, in a way where they can all be addressed, because if we go into committee and there is closure, then we won't have done anyone any justice.

I hope the government will continue so that we can have the tribute to all of these folks we've been talking about through this process.

Mr Bradley: I think it's most appropriate that the member for Ottawa West-Nepean spoke on this, being a very close friend of Brian.

Brian Smith, as I think people who follow sports would know, and particularly people in the Ottawa area would know, was an individual very much beloved in the community. Because a person has a high profile and there are a lot of people who are fans and friends of that individual, that individual sometimes becomes a target of someone else who is suffering from a psychiatric illness.

The story was moving, the way the member for Ottawa West-Nepean provided it. It's very personal. That's what happens with bills of this kind. Very often, when we deal with legislation, we're dealing with it in the abstract, without the kind of human, concrete examples of how legislation might affect or deal with a problem that exists in our society. When it's somebody we know, it's much more meaningful.

There isn't anybody in this House who doesn't know of a family that is confronted with the anguish of an individual with psychiatric problems, perhaps more than one person in a family with psychiatric problems. Indeed, if we walk down the streets of Toronto we see a number of individuals, not everyone who is in those circumstances but a number of individuals, who are confronted with psychiatric problems that