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

June 13, 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-13 vol. A (PDF)

L071A - Tue 13 Jun 2000 / Mar 13 jun 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SHABAQUA HIGHWAY

UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS' DAY

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

BRYAN LEWIS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

SPECIAL EDUCATION

HYDRO RATES

ONTARIO ECONOMY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ELECTRONIC COMMERCE ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LE COMMERCE ÉLECTRONIQUE

MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LE MINISTÈRE DES SERVICES CORRECTIONNELS

SAVE OUR ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 VISANT À SAUVEGARDER NOTRE PATRIMOINE ARCHITECTURAL

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LEGISLATION

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

WATER QUALITY

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

WATER QUALITY

EATING DISORDERS

WATER QUALITY

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

WATER QUALITY

CAMPING

WATER QUALITY

MINISTRY OF TOURISM

CAMPING

WATER QUALITY

SECURITY OF THE LEGISLATIVE PRECINCT

USE OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FACILITIES

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

PETITIONS

ABORTION

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

LORD'S PRAYER

PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

KARLA HOMOLKA

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

FARMLAND

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

CO-OP HOUSING

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

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

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

CAMPING

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SHABAQUA HIGHWAY

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I want to use this opportunity today to call on the Minister of Transportation to move ahead with the construction of the Shabaqua Highway in Thunder Bay. This crucial route, which would extend the existing Harbour Expressway westerly to connect with Highway 11/17 at the 10th Side Road, needs to be made a real priority by this government as the sharp increase in commercial traffic on both the Arthur Street corridor and Highway 102/Dawson Road is causing serious safety concerns in our community.

Most significantly, construction of the Shabaqua Highway would create a much-needed direct connection to the heavy industrial area of the city and would be supported, once it's completed, by a ban on everything but local traffic on Arthur Street.

It's important to note that this is a project that can move ahead quickly. This route has been in the planning stages since the mid-1970s. All the necessary land has been acquired. The right-of-way has been cleared and it is my understanding that all environmental reviews have been completed.

The construction of this important highway extension is supported by Thunder Bay city council, the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce, various trucking organizations and by an ever-increasing number of citizens in our community. It is my hope that you will see the value of moving forward with the construction of the Shabaqua Highway, especially in light of your commitment to spend more money on northern roads.

As commercial truck traffic continues to increase on our roads, it is vital that we seek solutions to the safety issues that go along with those increases, as well as the economic advantages of smoother passage for transport. Minister, this is a project that deserves your support. Please make it a priority.

UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS' DAY

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I'd like to draw members' attention to Monday, June 19, which is fast approaching. On that day, Ontario celebrates its third United Empire Loyalists' Day. I will host and participate in an 11:30 am ceremony to commemorate the occasion on the lawn at Queen's Park. It will be an honour to represent Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant on June 19, both as an MPP and also as a descendant of a Loyalist family.

Although he can't make it on that day, I'd also like to recognize a former member for Hastings-Peterborough, Harry Danford, UE, for making United Empire Loyalists' Day a reality in Ontario.

The story of United Empire Loyalists began over 200 years ago during the conflict between the crown and its American colonies over what was considered to be over-taxation and oppressive rule. Not all inhabitants of the original 13 American colonies were in favour of independence. These loyalists reflected diverse religious, cultural and economic backgrounds representing many places of origin: England, France, Germany, Holland, Africa, native North Americans and others.

Today, Canadian's benefit from the democratic institutions Loyalists fought to defend: a Parliamentary democracy headed by a constitutional monarchy. This is our heritage and one that I am proud to serve. I invite all members to join me to celebrate United Empire Loyalists' Day. God save the Queen.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): Over the past year, my northern colleagues and I have continued to raise our concern about the unfair treatment of northern Ontario residents who have to leave their home communities to receive health care.

A year ago, northerners were frustrated and angry to learn that cancer patients from southern Ontario who have to travel to get radiation treatment had all their travel, accommodation and meal costs paid for by the government. In the meantime, northern Ontario patients were eligible for a maximum of $420 dollars through the northern health travel grant.

Last June, the government agreed to cover all the costs of northern patients who were receiving brachiotherapy-a positive hopeful step. But there has been no further action since then despite petitions with thousands and thousands of names of concerned citizens and unanimous support of every northern municipality, wanting to see fair treatment of northern Ontario patients.

The minister seems to think there's nothing more that needs to be done. She says northerners get the same treatment as southerners if they have to leave their region to get care. That is simply not the case, not for cancer patients and not even for families of children with cancer who have to go to Sick Kids for treatment. It is certainly not the case that there's fair treatment for others who have to leave to get care.

I have constituents who have to leave northwestern Ontario to get treatment for neurological disorders and to have cardiac surgery. Children with spina bifida have repeated visits to clinics in Toronto. If you need a kidney transplant, it will cost you over $4,000, and that's if you're prepared to come down and go through it by yourself without any help or support.

Those are just a few examples of people who are being forced to spend large amounts of their own money to get medically necessary care.

The only difference between the situation of southern Ontario cancer patients and the needs of northern Ontario residents is that the situation is not temporary for northerners. It's gone on too long. It's time to address the unfairness.

BRYAN LEWIS

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate Bryan Lewis, the NHL director of officiating, on winning the Georgetown Hockey Heritage Award for 2000.

Mr Lewis began his hockey career playing minor hockey in Georgetown. He graduated to play Junior C with the Georgetown Raiders and moved to Junior B, playing in both Dixie, where he met his wife, and Burlington. He eventually became involved as an administrator, acting as commissioner for Georgetown Legion hockey with the guidance of Bill Fisher, Jim Yates and Roy Norton Sr.

Mr Lewis was a charter member of the Georgetown Referees' Association. While working minor hockey, he was selected to officiate in the Georgetown International Bantam Tournament and has officiated in every tournament in its 39-year history.

Mr Lewis quickly advanced as a referee through the OHA Junior A and eventually received the OHA honour roll award.

He refereed his first NHL game on January 6, 1970, in Montreal, the first of 1,031 such assignments, including the 1981 All-Star game, the 1984 Canada Cup and the Stanley Cup playoffs, often in the final series. Mr Lewis joined the NHL as supervisor of officials in 1986 and was appointed director of officiating in 1989.

He has always been a supporter of hockey in Georgetown, and I'd like to thank him for his contributions over the years.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): As the government continues to spin numbers in regard to health care spending in Ontario, I will remind this government of a crisis we have at St Joseph's Hospital in Hamilton. This hospital, which has a number one rating for efficiency in the province of Ontario, is facing a $5.4-million debt in the upcoming year. The hospital, I want to stress, has warned the province of Ontario that people's health will be put in jeopardy and the possibility will exist that people will die if this funding is not forwarded to St Joseph's.

Some of the steps they'll have to take will include closing beds, reducing admissions, laying off staff, cancelling elective surgery, increasing waiting time in the ER and turning ambulances away more often.

We're just seeing the impact of this. The mobile collection blood service, which would go to the homes of seniors and the disabled in Hamilton-Wentworth who are too ill or too frail to go to a clinic, has been cancelled. Over 20,000 visits a year by this mobile service will no longer take place as a result of funding cuts by the government of Ontario. We have one of the longest waiting lists for cardiac surgery at St Joseph's Hospital.

I urge, I beg, I implore this government to give St Joseph's the $5.4 million. Let me go clearly on the record: As you were warned with Walkerton, you have been warned with St Joseph's Hospital. They have made it clear that people could die because of cuts in services. Remember that in coming up with the $5.4 million necessary for St Joseph's in Hamilton.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I have a message for the Minister of Education and the Premier from parents and teachers, and trustees as well: Bill 74 is injurious to the entire teaching profession, but to the entire educational profession in its individual parts and on the whole. I've got to tell you that what this minister has announced in terms of saying that extracurricular activity will not be mandatory but will be in law, not applied but held in abeyance, like the sword of Damocles-with the help of the clerks we were able to get that right, and I appreciate the help. That's the first part.

I find it offensive and the teaching profession finds that particular measure you've taken offensive. Nothing has been done to help the teachers. The fact that you are forcing teachers to teach 6.67 courses of teaching time means that teachers will be teaching yet another extra class. It means you will be firing up to 2,000 teachers-offensive to the teachers and offensive to me.

Finally, you are, through this bill, decapitating the trustees, where they are rendered helpless and unable to defend and protect the parents who elected them. They are powerless with this bill. You have taken away local control with this bill and we are all angry about it.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I'd like to bring to the attention of the House the extraordinary efforts being made by teachers of special needs students in the primary schools of Durham region.

An excellent example happened last week. C.E. Broughton school is an innovative school in Whitby, in the riding represented by my colleague Jim Flaherty, the Attorney General for the province. Ms Smyka and Mrs Clark each teach classes of special needs students. Supported by their educational assistants, last week they organized a two-night camping trip for the special needs students at the scout camp, Camp Samac, in Oshawa, which is in the riding of the member for Durham, Mr O'Toole, I might add. The children were both excited and delighted. What a wonderful experience for these children as part of their education.

I am sure all members will share our enthusiasm in Durham region for the teachers and educational assistants who lead the way in demonstrating initiative and dedication to their students and, in particular, expanding the horizons of special needs children.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I want to talk about Hydro today, and particularly and sadly about the fact that hydro rates are going up for all Ontarians: residential, farm, and industrial and commercial consumers. They're going up because of the electricity policy of the Harris government.

It was astonishing last Thursday to hear the Minister of Energy, Mr Wilson, stand here and play the blame game: "It's all because of the municipalities." Well, let's talk turkey. Let's talk the truth.

What have we got? Over at Ontario Hydro, we find out that they are down at the energy board bragging about the fact that, thanks to a capital restructuring done last year in the dark, they've built in a 9.35% commercial rate of return already. Their rates in most cases are substantially higher than the rates for customers at the municipal level beside them.

I have to say, we're all watching these days the multimillion-dollar Hydro ads. You know the new Hydro One? Those ads should be recalibrated to say "Hydro Won," because under Mike Harris, Ontario Hydro has won. They managed to get this Tory Legislature to rig the rules of the new game by giving Hydro preferential status in the restructured market. We're going into a deregulated market this fall where Ontario Hydro generation is going to have 85% to 90% of the market.

Hydro rates are going up, you bet. They're going up because of direct actions of the Ontario government, not because of what municipalities are doing.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): Isabel Bassett, David Boushy, Jim Brown, Jack Carroll, Harry Danford, Ed Doyle, Barb Fisher, Doug Ford, Gary Fox, Tom Froese, Bill Grimmett, Charles Harnick, Dave Johnson, Ron Johnson, Leo Jordan, Al Leach, Gary Leadston, Al McLean, John Parker, Trevor Petit, Peter Preston, Lillian Ross, Doug Rollins, Bill Saunderson, Reverend Derwyn Shea, Frank Sheehan, Toni Skarica, Bruce Smith, Bill Vankoughnet, Noble Villeneuve and Terrence Young.

On May 2, 2000, Finance Minister Ernie Eves presented the second of two consecutive balanced budgets for the province of Ontario. This is a historic achievement. The last time the Ontario budget was balanced in two consecutive years was in 1942-43 and 1943-44.

At the same time that this government has balanced budgets, the Ontario economy has flourished. Spurred by tax cuts, 700,000 net new jobs have been created, over 500,000 people have moved from welfare to work, and sound investments in health care, education and infrastructure have been made.

This legacy belongs not only to the current members who have returned to sit on this side of the Legislature; it should also be attributed to the above-mentioned former members. Our colleagues worked diligently with us between 1995 and 1999 to achieve the phenomenal Ontario turnaround. It is important that we commend them and thank them for their efforts.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on justice and social policy and move its adoption.

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

Bill 74,

An Act to amend the Education Act to increase education quality, to improve the accountability of school boards to students, parents and taxpayers and to enhance students' school experience.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will be please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1346 to 1351.

The Speaker: Would the members kindly take their seats.

Mr DeFaria has moved adoption of the report by the standing committee on justice and social policy.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Turnbull, David

Witmer, Elizabeth

Young, David

The Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Conway, Sean G.

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McLeod, Lyn

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 45; the nays are 32.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated Wednesday, May 31, 2000, the bill is ordered for third reading.

VISITORS

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With your indulgence, I'd like to introduce to this chamber, in the west gallery, the senior fire managers from the Peoples' Republic of China. They are here today to watch these proceedings. They'll be spending close to a month in Ontario working with our forest firefighters and learning the techniques in Ontario. I'm pleased to report that Ontario's firefighting equipment and our manpower is known around the world. I'm pleased to welcome these firefighters from the Peoples' Republic of China here today.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): That is not a point of order, but we do welcome our guests.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ELECTRONIC COMMERCE ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LE COMMERCE ÉLECTRONIQUE

Mr Flaherty moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 88,

An Act to promote the use of information technology in commercial and other transactions by resolving legal uncertainties and removing statutory barriers that affect electronic communication / Projet de loi 88, Loi visant à promouvoir l'utilisation des technologies de l'information dans les opérations commerciales et autres en éliminant les incertitudes juridiques et les obstacles législatifs qui ont une incidence sur les communications électroniques.

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

The Attorney General for a short statement.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I'm going to make a minister's statement on it.

MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LE MINISTÈRE DES SERVICES CORRECTIONNELS

Mr Kormos moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 89,

An Act to amend the Ministry of Correctional Services Act with respect to parole hearings and the disclosure of information by the Board of Parole, to ensure greater fairness and broader access for victims, inmates and others / Projet de loi 89, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le ministère des Services correctionnels à l'égard des audiences de libération conditionnelle et de la divulgation de renseignements par la Commission des libérations conditionnelles afin d'assurer une plus grande équité et un meilleur accès pour les victimes, les détenus et d'autres personnes.

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

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

The member for Niagara Centre for a short statement.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): This act would entitle victims to be advised as of right of pending parole hearings and to be able to attend as of right those parole hearings in the provincial context. As well, it would entitle members of the public, including most importantly members of the press, journalists, to attend parole hearings and obtain that appropriate information, including reasons given for granting or denying parole, so that there can be a new level of transparency in the parole process and an enhancement of victims' rights when it comes to consideration of parole applications by inmates.

SAVE OUR ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 VISANT À SAUVEGARDER NOTRE PATRIMOINE ARCHITECTURAL

Mr Marchese moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 90,

An Act to amend the Ontario Heritage Act to promote the conservation of buildings of historic or architectural value / Projet de loi 90, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le patrimoine de l'Ontario pour promouvoir la conservation de bâtiments ayant une valeur historique ou architecturale.

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

The member for a short statement.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): This is a harmless and non-partisan bill, as you can imagine. The bill makes the following amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act: Municipal councils are given power to prohibit the demolition of buildings that have been designated under

part IV and demolition of buildings in areas designated under

part V. As you know, currently the act merely allows councils to delay demolition for up to 180 days.

The second thing it would do is that council decisions may be appealed to the Conservation Review Board. The third point is that a provision dealing with financial assistance for owners of heritage properties is included in the bill.

I hope to have the support of government members on this.

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): I move that the standing committee on general government be authorized to meet from 9 am to 12 pm on Wednesday, June 14, 2000, for the purpose of considering Bill 68.

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LEGISLATION

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): This statement is about the bill I introduced a few minutes ago.

The world is going on-line. Over 300 million people around the globe access the Internet on a regular basis. Over the next three years it is estimated that, worldwide, e-business will reach US$1.3 trillion dollars annually. For Ontario, that means the creation of new jobs and the potential sale of millions of dollars in goods and services.

Still, some businesses and consumers are wary of doing business electronically because of the legal uncertainty governing on-line transactions. This uncertainty is restricting the growth and acceptance of e-commerce in Ontario.

The legislation I introduced earlier today, if passed, would boost the on-line growth of electronic business in this province. Our proposed Electronic Commerce Act would cut red tape and remove outdated legal barriers to e-commerce. This bill would encourage investment and investor confidence in Ontario and provide the people of Ontario with a new level of certainty in their electronic transactions.

This bill would ensure that electronic contracts, documents and signatures have the same legal effect as contracts, documents and signatures on paper. This bill would set up rules for automated transactions and for correcting mistakes made on a computer. This bill would adopt national and international standards for e-commerce law based on international models developed by the United Nations.

The act would be enabling legislation. It would not force people to go electronic. It would simply provide legal clarity for those who wish to do so.

The act would be minimalist legislation. It would not prescribe any particular technology that must be used.

We know there are privacy concerns surrounding e-commerce, and we have consulted with the Information and Privacy Commission. In fact, the commissioner has written to me indicating how pleased she was with the consultation. As well, the related issue of consumer protection is being reviewed and will be addressed by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the member for Etobicoke North, John Hastings, for all his efforts and initiative in the area of e-commerce.

I would also like to thank the many businesses and associations that have told us that they fully endorse the introduction of e-commerce legislation: John Wetmore, the president and CEO of IBM Canada, is one business leader who is encouraging other provinces to adopt our government's approach. As well, I am pleased to acknowledge several business leaders in the House today: Margo Langford of IBM Canada, Louis H. Milrad of I-TAC, Mr George Takach, author of Computer Law in Canada, Peter Woolford of the Retail Council of Canada, Shameela Abbas and Susan Kerr of the Canadian Bankers Association.

This government is committed to fostering a positive climate for e-business by bringing Ontario laws in line with technological advances and by allowing business to be as creative, innovative and competitive as possible. Better laws encourage investment and job creation in Ontario.

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): All members of this House share a determination to get to the bottom of the Walkerton tragedy. Today I am informing the House that cabinet has now formally established a commission of inquiry with Justice Dennis O'Connor as commissioner. I am also pleased to announce that comprehensive terms of reference for the public inquiry have been finalized, giving Justice O'Connor a broad mandate to examine all relevant matters to ensure the safety of Ontario's water supply system.

In drafting the terms of reference, I have consulted Walkerton residents and the two opposition parties, as well as Justice O'Connor and Chief Justice McMurtry of the Ontario Court of Appeal. My aim has been to see that the commission has a free hand to get to the bottom of this tragedy.

Under the terms of reference, the commission is to inquire into the following areas: first of all, the circumstances which caused hundreds of people to become ill and several to die at a time when E coli bacteria were found in the Walkerton water supply; second, the cause of these events, including the effect, if any, of government policies, procedures and practices; and third, any other relevant matters the commission considers necessary to ensure the safety of Ontario's drinking water.

The terms also authorize the commission to make recommendations to the Attorney General on funding for parties with standing at the inquiry who would not be able to participate without financial assistance. The government will accept and follow these recommendations.

Let me share with the members of the House a statement by the commissioner, Justice O'Connor. He says: "I have reviewed and been consulted with regard to the terms of reference for the inquiry. I am satisfied that they will enable me to carry out a full and thorough inquiry into the causes of what happened at Walkerton-including the effect, if any, of government policies, practices and procedures-and the implications for the safety of drinking water in Ontario, in order to make recommendations to ensure the safety of the water supply system in Ontario."

Justice O'Connor continues, "I am satisfied that I have sufficiently broad powers under the terms of reference and under the Public Inquiries Act to carry out this very wide mandate."

As mentioned, I also consulted Chief Justice McMurtry on the terms. I can assure the members that the Chief Justice is also satisfied that the terms of reference will provide the basis for a full and thorough inquiry.

I know the people of Walkerton and the Ontario public want to know when the inquiry will begin and how long it will last. Justice O'Connor has indicated that within a period of 30 to 60 days he will develop a work plan and a tentative

schedule for hearings. He will then be in a position to announce when public hearings will be scheduled.

As I've said before, the victims and their families demand answers, the people of Ontario demand answers, and the government demands answers. The Premier has pledged the government's full co-operation. We all want to get to the bottom of this tragedy. With a distinguished commissioner and broad terms of reference in place, I am confident we have established a process that will get those answers.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): I respond today on behalf of the official opposition to the Attorney General's announcement with respect to the terms of reference for the O'Connor inquiry, which the government has appointed at the urging of my leader, Dalton McGuinty.

First of all, let me begin by saying that the terms of reference contained in the order in council are broad and we welcome the fact that Justice O'Connor has endorsed them and endorsed the way it will unfold in the course of the next months and years. We have just now received the actual order in council and I note that, as is called for, the justice will have discretion over making recommendations with respect to intervener funding, an issue we raised with the Attorney General by letter dated June 7.

I note that, as case law indicated to us and as we stressed in our letter to the Attorney General dated June 7, the question of standing at the inquiry will be determined by the justice. We have confidence in the justice's appointment, that he will make what we believe to be the correct decisions on these issues.

We note there's no provision for an interim report. We will publicly ask the justice to give consideration to that, if the government has not asked him to do that. We raised that in earlier correspondence with the Attorney General.

The other question we want to put out publicly now, and the Attorney General has given me his assurance in our meetings to discuss this, is the question of the approved budget that's called for in the order in council. It is our understanding from our discussions with the Attorney General and in response to a letter I sent him subsequent to that, that there will be no restraint put on the budget that's provided to the commission, so that if the budget that's initially approved does not meet the commissioner's needs, he will have the ability to go back and get that budget updated.

That budget should not limit in any way, shape or form his ability to conduct a thorough and proper inquiry into what can only be termed one of the greatest tragedies in the history of this province.

I'd also like to put on the record today what the terms of reference do not deal with. The terms of reference of this inquiry ought not to prevent the government from responding to legitimate questions in this Legislature about legitimate matters of public policy. The government cannot and ought not to use that as a shield to prevent itself from answering legitimate questions that are going to be placed by the official opposition with respect to a variety of issues that may be in front of the commission.

Yesterday we saw the Minister of the Environment refuse to release the list of towns where there is concern about their water quality, ostensibly because this is under investigation by the commission. That is simply not acceptable to the opposition and you ought not to be using this as some kind of shield.

The government's belated acknowledgement that an inquiry can go on while criminal and civil actions may be ongoing causes us to think about the issue of Ipperwash and the Dudley George situation, and the response the government has given to not having a public inquiry there. But I stress to the government, if your attempts to get all of the answers to this are legitimate, you cannot hide behind Justice O'Connor from the very real issues that will be raised in this House by the opposition, by the communities affected. Any number of inquiries are going on and we urge you not to use this as a shield. I can tell you, we won't let you get away with that.

There are questions that require urgent responses. There are issues that need to be addressed and dealt with in a full public debate. We believe you have to be held accountable in this Legislature and in the court of public opinion while this is going on.

We welcome the appointment of Justice O'Connor and we trust his judgment and his ability, but we will not allow the government to hide behind this. We will hold you accountable not only for Walkerton but for what we believe to be a myriad of other issues that will be caused because of your reckless legislation and regulation.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I want to respond to the Attorney General and say that earlier on I sent you a long list of things that I believed needed to be dealt with in the terms of reference. While I am pleased with some of the things you've included in the terms of reference, there are other items that are not there that I believe need to be addressed, and addressed forthwith.

For example, if you truly appreciate the tragedy at Walkerton, if you truly appreciate that there are a number of issues that must be dealt with urgently, I believe you have no choice but to require an interim report. You know as well as I that if the commissioner is to delve into all of these matters over the longer term, it may take two, three or four years for a final report.

That prospect says to us, and especially to the citizens of Walkerton, that we need to have an interim report and that part of the terms of reference should be a clause which says, "An interim report dealing with the most pressing issues must be provided within 12 months." The fact that you have not done this is worrisome for me and I'm sure is worrisome for a number of people.

As well, instead of saying directly to the people of Walkerton, who have already told you that they want status and want intervener funding so they can present their case, you've said to them that they will now have to go and argue for it, that they will somehow have to line up at the council table and make a request. It seems to me, Attorney General, that justice demands that the citizens of Walkerton have not just your assurance but your commitment that they will be heard, that they will have legal status and that they will have intervener funding.

To do less than that, to say to them now, "If you want status and you want intervener funding, go and try to argue your case," is to me a denial of basic justice in the circumstances.

I also want to say to you that the fact you have not granted legal status to the people of Walkerton, the fact you have not granted, within the terms of reference, assurance of intervener funding, the fact you have not set out that there needs to be an interim report within, say, 12 months, makes all of us concerned that the objective here is to stickhandle these issues off into the hands of a commissioner of inquiry and leave them there for some extended period of time. I didn't want to be faced with that prospect, but the fact you've left these two critical issues out very much leads one to think in that direction. I say to you that is very problematic in the circumstances we face.

Attorney General, I want to tell you that even as you've presented these terms of reference here today, community after community across this province is receiving boil-water advisories from their medical officer of health. Today the communities of Cochenour, Balmertown, Madsen and Mackenzie Island, communities in my constituency, otherwise known as Red Lake, received a boil-water advisory from the medical officer of health. I say this to put you on notice.

If your government believes that by setting up the commission of inquiry now you can escape answering questions about why so many communities are receiving boil-water advisories, why so many communities are being told by their medical officer of health, "There are public health problems here," you will not escape that.

There are too many communities in this province that have problems with the quality of their water and the quality of their water treatment systems. We're going to ask you and the Minister of the Environment on a daily basis, and I would say the Minister of Health as well, why this problem seems to be occurring and recurring in so many communities across the province.

I just want to conclude by saying that while we finally welcome terms of reference almost one month after this tragedy happened, the terms of reference as they are stated do not meet the requirements of the citizens of Walkerton and, finally, do not meet the requirements of ensuring that we will get to the bottom of this matter in a speedy way, because it lacks an interim report.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Minister, even in the wake of Walkerton you are cutting and slashing environmental protection. In the spending estimates released yesterday by your ministry-we had to pry them out of them late yesterday and they're being considered tomorrow-there's a 77% cut in water and sewage infrastructure. Two weeks after people died because of contaminated water, you're planning to cut what we spend on keeping drinking water safe.

Your capital budget for water and sewage infrastructure will be cut from $225 million to $53 million, and that drops to zero next year. Minister, how can you possibly cut drinking water protection after drinking water killed people in Walkerton?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): The figures that the member opposite refers to refer to the provincial water protection fund. This is a $200-million fund that was spread out over three years. What actually happened was that money was accelerated and given to municipalities, so that instead of three years, that money was put out over two years, because we recognized that it was a priority, and continues to be a priority, for this government. The $200 million went to the municipalities. They have updated many water projects in the province, as well as many other sewage projects.

Mr Bradley: The fact is that you've cut it and so there's none left for next year and only $53 million this year. What we've heard in this House is that people who build sewers were told that sewage and water isn't a priority for SuperBuild money. These numbers come from your own spending estimates, just released. You'll have to defend them this afternoon and tomorrow and next week in committee, although I don't know how you can possibly do that.

Our water and sewer infrastructure is crumbling. It's the best defence we have against poisons in our drinking water and you're cutting it by 77%. Minister, seven people, perhaps as many as 11 people, died in Walkerton. Didn't that tell you and your government something?

Hon Mr Newman: As I've indicated, that money was accelerated to municipalities. We could have kept the money over a three-year period, but we decided to make that money available over a two-year period. Had we not done that, the member opposite would not be raising the question that he is. What we decided to do was accelerate that money to those municipalities that were part of the program, because water and sewage projects are indeed a priority for our government.

It's all about money for you people, isn't it? Seven people are dead-maybe 11 died-and it's still all about money. Minister, didn't you and your government learn anything from Walkerton?

Hon Mr Newman: As the Minister of the Environment, I have a responsibility to stand up to protect the environment of this province. That also means standing up to protect water quality in this province. It also includes protecting the air that we breathe and it also means protecting the land of our province. It's something that we take very seriously as a government and something that I take very seriously as the minister.

With respect to what the member opposite has said, nothing could be further from the truth.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question, member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: Minister, according to a cabinet document, 571 municipal governments will have to prove to you that services by them are, as I quote again, "a better value." That means you're telling them that the only bottom line is cost. What about the cost to human safety? What about the cost of human lives?

This is the way your government does things: starve public services, watch them crumble and then give them away to your business buddies; download on to municipalities, then cut water and sewer spending by 77%, damn the consequences, and then privatize.

Minister, now that people have died, will you stop this dangerous scheme?

Hon Mr Newman: I refer the question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I'd be happy to answer the question on behalf of the government.

One of the reasons why we believe we should be the government is because the people demand better quality services at less cost to the taxpayer. That is one of the reasons why they voted for the Common Sense Revolution. It's one of the things we as a province should be doing on an ongoing basis, every municipality should be doing on an ongoing basis and indeed the federal government should also be doing on an ongoing basis.

On this side of the House, despite the spin of the opposition, we are of the view that better quality services for less is one of the reasons why we are in government and we're going to continue down that path to work with our municipal partners to get to those solutions.

Mr Bradley: There's no spin about the fact that seven people have died in Walkerton. That is one of the problems, when I talked about right-wing ideologues. I want to go back to the Minister of the Environment.

Minister, if we've learned anything in the past month, it's the importance of accountability. The ultimate responsibility for protecting our drinking water rests with your government. The buck stops with you even if you try to pass the buck to the NDP or to human error or to municipalities.

Now you want to pass the buck yet again to the private sector and wash your hands of any responsibility for protecting our drinking water. You should know by now that this ideological bent you people are on is dangerous. It has serious consequences for real people. A $200 cheque doesn't mean a darned thing to a mother who has lost a child or to a child who has lost a grandparent.

Minister, you can't support this scheme and protect the environment. Will you tell this Legislature and the people of Ontario clearly and unequivocally that you oppose the budget cuts and you oppose the privatization of our drinking water system?

Hon Mr Newman: No one is passing the buck; we're taking responsibility for the environment.

I think it's important to look back at where we were in this province five years ago. We had an annual deficit of $11.2 billion. We saw jobs leaving our province. That has all turned around and I can tell you that with respect to infrastructure funding there's money in the Ontario SuperBuild Corp for infrastructure, and that would include water and sewer projects.

Mr Bradley: As Minister of the Environment you have a special responsibility and obviously that responsibility is to protect the environment. What the right-wing ideologues in the Premier's office and the cabinet are doing is drastically cutting the budget for the Ministry of the Environment and for water and sewer facilities in Ontario, and forcing municipalities to ultimately turn their water and sewer plants over to the private interests where the main preoccupation is to make a profit. What they are doing will place the safety of drinking water at even greater risk.

A month ago you would have had no clout or ammunition with which to confront the Premier and his right-wing advisers. But the Premier has been severely damaged by the events of the past few weeks and he can no longer run roughshod over those who oppose his agenda, even those in the cabinet.

With seven people in Walkerton dead, with drinking water in our province at risk, will you tell the Premier that he must abandon these damaging budget cuts and his insistence on privatizing our water and sewer system in Ontario? If he won't, will you submit your resignation in protest?

Hon Mr Newman: The member opposite is absolutely correct that I do take my job and responsibilities as Minister of the Environment very seriously. My job is to ensure that the environment in this province is protected. That means not only the water in our province, but also the air that we breathe and the land. That's my responsibility as minister and that's what I intend to do.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Minister, about four years ago you laid off 339 people in the investigations and enforcement branch of the Ministry of the Environment. At the same time, you privatized all of the testing of water across the province. We know that in Walkerton water testing was one of the problems. Privatized labs were not under any legal requirement to report to the medical officer of health.

There weren't enough staff in your ministry to ensure that reports that came to the ministry were in fact communicated to the medical officer of health. Can you tell us, please, in your latest proposal how privatizing more of the water system and laying off more of the people who are in charge of water quality and water testing at the municipal level are going to better protect the quality of water for Ontario communities?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): With respect to the testing of water in this province, I can tell the member opposite that in 1993 the government brought forward the idea of charging municipalities for water testing in the province, gave them the option, gave them the ability, instead of paying the Ministry of the Environment for those tests, to go to a private lab. In 1996, what our government did was to allow it all to go to private labs because 50% of all testing in the province was not being done in the Ministry of the Environment labs.

I'd want to caution the member opposite not to reach any conclusions or to jump to any conclusions. He seems to have arrived at his own conclusions, but I remind him that there are four investigations underway, including the inquiry. I just remind him that there has been absolutely no change with respect to the numbers of investigators within the Ministry of the Environment.

Mr Hampton: You can repeat that line all you want. Your own internal government documents show that in 1995 there were 890 people in the enforcement and inspection branch, and by 1998 there were only 651. The hypocrisy of this is clear to everyone. You say that your government is interested in having an inquiry to get to the bottom of what happened at Walkerton and to ensure that the water quality and safety are protected.

In the meantime, behind closed doors you've got a proposal to force even more privatization of the water supply and to force municipalities to lay off people they have working for them who are supposed to be there to protect the water supply. Can you tell us, please, which is your government's true agenda: to get to the bottom of this and make sure it doesn't happen, or to use the public inquiry as a smokescreen while you carry out the other half of your business, which is going to put the water supply at risk?

Hon Mr Newman: I refer that question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): The honourable member asked what our agenda is. Our agenda is to protect the people of Ontario, to constantly look at everything we do in this government and everything that is done with our municipal partners to ensure the delivery of best quality services at an accountable cost to the taxpayers. That is a process that will not be stopped by his haranguing, will not be stopped by the opposition.

That is what the people of Ontario demand of us, and if we so much as retreat one millimetre from the job of protecting the taxpayers, protecting the citizens through better quality services, we don't deserve to sit on this side of the House. We are moving forward on behalf of the people of Ontario. That is why they elected us.

Mr Hampton: I have to say to the Minister of the Environment, your job is to protect the environment of this province and it includes the quality of the drinking water for people. What you're putting forward in your cabinet proposal is nothing less than what Margaret Thatcher in Britain put forward. It resulted, yes, in 50% profit levels for corporations.

It resulted, yes, in the layoff of thousands of people who were supposed to be there to protect the water supply, but it also resulted in the British medical society on an annual basis sending a letter to those Conservative governments and telling them that what they'd done in privatizing water was creating a major public health problem for the population across Great Britain. Is that what you're up to? Is that what you call protecting the water supply: turning it over to your private friends and laying off more of the inspectors? This is utter contempt. What's the real agenda here? Come clean.

Hon Mr Clement: Perhaps the honourable member would be interested in knowing that there are already private company operators operating water plants in Ontario. Perhaps they were around when his government was in power because this is something that has been occurring in the province for a good deal of time. Nothing could be further from the truth than the rhetoric on the opposite side. Our position is simple and straightforward with the people of Ontario: We are always looking for ways to deliver better quality services at an accountable cost to the taxpayers.

It's not only a duty incumbent upon us; it's a duty incumbent upon every single transfer partner we have. We will not shrink from that duty and responsibility to the people of Ontario because, you're right, they deserve higher quality services. That means not accepting the status quo, not defending the status quo, but always moving forward with better ideas for health, for safety, for the delivery of the services the citizens of Ontario expect. We do not shy away from that responsibility; indeed we take it upon us proudly.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question, the member for Broadview-Greenwood.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): I would say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, tell that to the people in Walkerton.

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): To the Minister of the Environment: Yesterday we asked you about documents in which your staff warned that your cuts meant reduced services. Today we heard your colleague the previous Minister of the Environment speak about your failure to initiate more than a single prosecution for 3,300 violations of industrial and municipal discharges, including the Walkerton plant. We've pointed this out to you before in the House, with no satisfactory answer. Then, that minister was quoted as saying the ministry would hire more inspectors. When asked about progress on this, he said, "Dan's working on it."

Minister, it has been three years since you were warned about the effects of the cuts. Now your colleague says you're working on it. Are you going to keep ducking the truth here?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): No one is ducking the truth. I want to say to the member opposite that we take waste water discharges in this province very seriously, whether it's from an industrial source or a municipal source, from a sewage treatment plant. There are many exceedances that have taken place. There are various reasons why. We take it very seriously. It's something the government wants to work towards.

Ms Churley: Minister, nobody is taking you seriously. You have to do better than that. As you know, the Walkerton sewage plant is a repeat violator for discharge standards in 1998, 1997, 1996 and 1995. Now that plant has another problem: The sewage holding tank is almost full, because farmers won't take the sludge because it contains the deadly E coli 0157. A Ministry of the Environment spokesperson, the same one we spoke to yesterday who said they didn't have enough staff to go to Rocklyn, was asked what will happen with this holding tank now that it is full and there's nowhere to put the sludge. He said, "We don't know."

People in Walkerton have been calling us about this. They are frightened. Yesterday we had to go to the Premier to get your staff to Rocklyn. He's not here today so I'm asking you, Minister, what action are you going to take before there is more contamination in Walkerton? I want an answer today.

Hon Mr Newman: First, with respect to waste water discharge, I want to bring to the attention of everyone a June 9 Toronto Star article. There was an executive jailed for a waste spill. It says, "The operations manager of a waterfront oil recycling company was jailed yesterday for 90 days after admitting the company spilled hazardous chemical waste into Toronto harbour." So action is indeed taking place.

With respect to what the member opposite speaks about, I would be pleased to look into it and get back to her.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I have a question to the Minister of the Environment. I have in my hand two auditors' reports, from 1996 and 1998. The Ontario auditor, in the fall of 1996, raised some very real concerns about the state of Ontario's water policy. At that time your ministry said that you were developing a strategy to deal with these concerns.

Two years later, the auditor for Ontario again raised his concern, more serious this time than two years before, about what is and is not happening to protect the public from contaminated water. Your department said in the fall, in responding to the 1998 Ontario auditor's report, "We, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, have yet to finalize a comprehensive groundwater strategy." That was the fall of 1998.

Minister, two auditor's reports within the last four years raised serious concerns about water quality. In 1998, after the second warning from the Provincial Auditor, your predecessor said, "We are developing a comprehensive groundwater strategy." Did you ever finalize that groundwater strategy in response to the auditor's concerns? If so, will you table that groundwater strategy spoken of in the 1998 Provincial Auditor's report, complete with any implementation policy that went with that so-called comprehensive strategy?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): This year's budget contains money for a groundwater monitoring network. What's important first is that you obviously have to monitor the water to see what you have in the groundwater system in Ontario. That's why $6 million is being spent over three years-$3.6 million this year-in the groundwater monitoring strategy. There are some 350 electronic monitoring devices being put towards the 36 conservation authorities in Ontario to enable them to monitor the groundwater. Obviously you have to know what's there first to go forward with a strategy.

Mr Conway: I'm sorry, that's not nearly good enough. My concern is not what you did after the tragedy at Walkerton in May-June of 2000. We had not one but two auditor's reports raising real concern, on top of what the Environmental Commissioner said. In the fall of 1998, your department said you were in the process of finalizing a comprehensive groundwater strategy to deal with the auditor's concerns.

I have to assume, as an honourable member, as we all do, that you were telling the auditor the truth, and that sometime shortly after the second report was tabled in this Legislature in the fall of 1998 there was a comprehensive groundwater strategy from your department. What I want to know now is: Will you today table in this Legislature and show the people of Ontario precisely what was in the groundwater strategy and what implementation strategy was to go with it 18 months ago when, for the second time in two years, the Provincial Auditor raised very serious concerns about the public not being fully protected from contaminated water in this province?

Hon Mr Newman: Again, in the budget of May 2 of this year, there was money for the groundwater monitoring network: $3.6 million this year and 350 electronic monitoring sites throughout the province. The groundwater will be monitored, and I can tell you that's being done. It's $6 million over three years. With respect to any other information, I'd be pleased to make it available

EATING DISORDERS

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington): My question is for the Minister of Health. Many Ontarians, in particular young girls and women, suffer from eating disorders. The physical impact of these conditions can be debilitating not only for the individuals involved but can have serious impacts on the lives of the sufferers and their families.

I know the treatment of this illness is very specialized. In my own riding, Homewood Health Centre is a leader in the treatment of eating disorders. People come from not only across Ontario but across the continent to receive care from their expert physicians.

I also know that the number of people suffering from eating disorders is growing. Could you please provide members of the House with an update of what the government is doing to help those who are struggling to overcome eating disorders?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The issue of eating disorders is very serious. We've had an opportunity to meet with parents, health care providers and individuals who suffer from eating disorders, and we have heard the concerns that have been expressed. We've also heard from the Chief Coroner and the family physicians. As you know, we announced in our budget this year that we were prepared to spend an additional $7 million, which will mean that funding for the eating disorder program will have increased from $1.5 million in 1995 to $10.8 million in 2000.

The $7 million that has been set aside to help people who are struggling with eating disorders is a considerable increase.

Mrs Elliott: That is a remarkable increase in this portfolio. I too have heard from residents and families in my riding who are quite concerned about this. Can you give us specifics on exactly how that $7 million from this budget announcement will be spent?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The staff at the Ministry of Health are presently finalizing an implementation strategy to ensure that all regions in the province benefit from the expansion of services. I know there is a need for expanded services in the east, and the member opposite has indicated the need for services in the north. We want to make sure the allocations are made fairly, in response to the needs of those individuals, and I can assure the member for Guelph-Wellington that I will very soon be announcing the regional allocations of the $7 million.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. I took the minister's last response to me to be that there was in fact a comprehensive groundwater strategy.

Interjections.

Mr Conway: Listen, people are dead, and the reason I'm raising these questions is, what we have got from 1996 to May 2000? We had the auditor raising a concern in 1996. We had the Environmental Commissioner raising a serious concern. We had the auditor back raising yet more concerns in 1998. In January 2000, we had senior officials in the Ontario Ministry of the Environment raising their own alarms.

And we're told and asked to believe that people with names like Clement and Newman hadn't even seen the internal documents from January 2000 until they were reported in the press weeks later, after the Walkerton tragedy. This is all about what you did when independent third parties like the Prov incial Auditor were saying, "There's trouble here," as he said in 1996 and 1998.

What I want to know is, and I want to be clear: Was there or was there not, as you told the auditor in 1998, a comprehensive groundwater strategy developed to protect the public health against the concerns the auditor raised, not once but twice? Did that strategy ever exist, what was it and, more particularly, was it ever communicated and implemented across the province?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): We in the Ministry of the Environment are working with the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, as well as the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, on groundwater issues to ensure that groundwater is indeed protected and conserved. What is important to note also is that the provincial water protection fund also included $4.3 million that went to 88 municipalities to conduct 34 studies on groundwater in the province. That's what was done.

We also have the additional money in this year's budget with the groundwater monitoring network to protect the water in this province.

Mr Conway: The water of the province was in jeopardy, according to the auditor, and I am particularly interested about what happened from that first auditor's report in 1996 through till about April 2000. The inquiry is going to tell us a lot about what happened in the course of the Walkerton tragedy, but you see, Minister, for me the question is about trust. There are millions of Ontarians who are worried about whether or not they should be drinking their water. They want to believe that their provincial government is going to protect their public health, particularly when authoritative third parties like auditors raise alarm bells.

I guess the question I have to leave with now is, it doesn't appear that anything was done to respond to the auditor. You shake your head. You've got one more chance to tell me, specifically between the fall of 1998 and about March or April 2000, what specific strategy did you develop, consistent with your promise to the auditor, to deal with the concerns the auditor raised, and why should the people of Ontario today trust you and your government to protect them against these kinds of environmental concerns when there is altogether too much evidence that from 1996 through to the year 2000 you did not respond to serious authoritative alarm bells rung by people like the Provincial Auditor?

Hon Mr Newman: Again, there was money from the provincial water protection fund, some $4.3 million, that went to fund 34 studies affecting 88 municipalities to look at the groundwater issue in the province. In addition to that, in this year's budget there is the $6-million announcement of a groundwater monitoring network, with $3.6 million in the budget this year that will provide some 350 electronic monitoring devices throughout the province to monitor groundwater in the 36 watersheds.

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

Mr Brad Clark (Stoney Creek): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. A great number of my constituents are among the thousands of people who use the highways every weekday to commute to and from work somewhere in and around the GTA. Traffic congestion is an issue that more and more people are becoming concerned about in my community.

Using my community as an example, from Stoney Creek to downtown Toronto, a distance of only 75 kilometres, travel times are now reaching upwards of two and a half hours during peak periods. I can attest to that; I travel it myself daily.

Taxpayers and businesses are not only concerned about but affected by increasing congestion, as traffic jams often equate to increased travel costs and heightened incidents of road rage. What can you tell us that the Ministry of Transportation is doing to address these concerns?

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): I thank my colleague for this important question. Our government is investing $50 million in improvements on the QEW from Hamilton to Toronto, and they are currently underway. We're adding additional lanes and upgrading intersections.

Two weeks ago I announced Highway 6 New. This will be a $33-million investment which will construct a nine-kilometre link between Highway 403 and old Highway 6 to improve access to John C. Munro International Airport. Red Hill Creek Expressway is one to which we have committed $131.5 million and we're working with Hamilton-Wentworth-$200 million in the GTA highway improvements over this next year. Additionally, the 407 west extension will be completed July 31, 2001, at no cost to the taxpayer.

Our plan will reduce bottlenecks and improve traffic flow and expand and improve infrastructure in the GTA. We're proud of the first $1-billion highway capital budget-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The minister's time is up. Supplementary.

Mr Clark: No doubt, highway construction is necessary to improve the flow of traffic. However, construction itself can become a source of congestion.

To use just one example, evening commuters along the QEW in Niagara would have experienced construction-related congestion as they approached Stoney Creek over the last two weeks. Minister, can you tell us what action your ministry is taking to mitigate the frustrating impacts of highway construction and ease traffic congestion for commuters in the GTA?

Hon Mr Turnbull: We're applying new, innovative techniques and technology. There will be no daytime lane closures on either the 401 or the QEW, and we're expanding the COMPASS camera coverage right through Burlington. There will be special message signs signalling construction information, and we're applying movable concrete barriers-the so-called Zipper-on the 401. But we do ask drivers to be patient and drive with care when they are going through construction zones. We're working to minimize the effects of highway construction.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Last Friday I attended a meeting of Cancer Care Ontario's northeast committee, and the matter of your government's discrimination against northern cancer patients was front and centre as a concern of the members.

The most vocal critic of your government's policy was board member Alex McCauley, who is chief of the Sudbury regional police force. He said the following about your discrimination:

"I have never seen anything so wrong. Fixing the northern health travel grant issue is an easy fix-just make it equitable. If the Harris government can't acknowledge this basic right of northerners, there is no point to stay on as a board member. Board members deserve to know where the government is taking this issue-if it's not going forward, I'll resign. If there is no resolution of this northern health travel grant issue, every board member must step down."

Minister, Chief McCauley wants to know, when is your government going to end its discrimination against northern cancer patients?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): There is no discrimination. There are two travel grant programs. One is the northern health travel grant, which is available for all Ontarians who live in northern Ontario, and it is available only to those who travel distances. It's not available to people in the south. There is another program available that has been established by Cancer Care Ontario which pays for travel for patients who are re-referred for radiation treatment, and any cancer patient in the province of Ontario is eligible for this grant, whether they live in the north, the south, the east or the west.

I wish the member would recognize that there are two programs. They are designed to meet two different purposes and they are designed to meet two different needs. In fact, if we want to talk about the northern health travel grant, the program we have today is the same as the one we had with the Liberals. It was the NDP who actually tightened the criteria, and I just wonder why she didn't make the change.

Ms Martel: Minister, don't insult Chief McCauley by trying to intimate he doesn't understand the issue. He's been a board member for a long time now. He understands cancer issues and he takes them very seriously. He knows that he is part of a board that made a decision 14 months ago to send cancer patients to the United States and to the north to get timely treatment. He knows he is part of a board that made a recommendation to you to pay 100% of the cost for travel, food and accommodation for those patients who have to travel far from home so they wouldn't face the financial burden.

He also clearly understands, Minister-and it seems you don't-that every single day in northern Ontario, people travel far from home to get treatment in Sudbury and Thunder Bay, and they have to travel even farther, leave the north altogether, to get cancer treatment in Toronto or in Ottawa. He knows that for the last 14 months your government has practised blatant discrimination against cancer patients because northern cancer patients can only get a fraction of their costs covered.

Chief McCauley and the board of the Cancer Care Ontario northeast committee want to know, when are you going to end this discrimination? When are you going to provide equitable treatment for northern cancer patients too?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Again, the member is not recognizing we have two programs that are designed to meet two different purposes and two different needs. Also, the member needs to know that we do take the needs of cancer patients very seriously. We have added approximately $155 million to our cancer budget in this province. I also would like the member to know that in a letter from Ken Shumak, the CEO of Cancer Care Ontario, he certainly supports the re-referral policy.

They will continue to support improved access for all cancer patients in Ontario and, as we have said, we are supporting Cancer Care Ontario in the re-referral program. We support the northern health travel grant. In fact, we are one of only four provinces in Canada that provide any funding for northern travel.

WATER QUALITY

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. We've already heard today that you have completely ignored the recommendations from the Provincial Auditor in both his 1996 and 1998 reports, but it goes further than that. Let me read to you something from the 1996 and 1997 standing committee on public accounts, whose report was unanimously passed by the committee and unanimously adopted by this House. It reads as follows:

"The Provincial Auditor recommended that the ministry develop a more proactive and systematic approach in order to better manage and monitor groundwater quantity and quality. Such an approach should include the updating of the water well information system and the aquifer maps to enable better assessment of current groundwater use in the province and for timely remedial action."

The committee specifically recommended and this House unanimously adopted the following resolution: "The ministry report to the committee by August 1998 on its progress in protecting groundwater quantity and quality."

Minister, why did you not report by August 1998? Why have you not reported to this date? You have done absolutely nothing. Give us the plan, if you have the plan.

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): First, as to the beginning of the question from the member opposite, it's not what I said. He's putting words in my mouth and he knows that.

What we did with the provincial water protection fund was there were 34 studies funded in 88 municipalities, which totalled some $4.3 million. That's part of the study. That's how you build a strategy, by doing some studying. Also, this year in the budget there is $3.6 million towards a groundwater monitoring network in the province; 350 electronic devices that will monitor groundwater through the 36 watersheds in our province.

Mr Gerretsen: I didn't say you said anything. This was the report from the committee and it was adopted by this House. It states quite specifically, "The ministry report to the committee by August 1998 on its progress in protecting groundwater quantity and quality." You and your ministry haven't done that. Why haven't you done that? Is it because there is absolutely no plan? Why are you in contempt of this Legislature? It unanimously adopted this report.

Interjection: Where is the plan?

Mr Gerretsen: Where is the plan? The committee and the Legislature have asked for a plan. Where is your plan that you should have filed by August 1998?

Hon Mr Newman: I know this is the fourth time I have to give this answer but I've got to give it because the member opposite obviously is not listening to it and doesn't understand the issue. Quite simply, the provincial water protection fund provided $4.3 million to study groundwater, to fund 34 studies that affected 88 municipalities. This last budget in May of this year also included $3.6 million this year, $6 million over three years, to fund the groundwater monitoring network, which includes 350 electronic devices in our province that will monitor groundwater.

CAMPING

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. In my riding of York North is one of the province's most popular provincial parks, Sibbald Point. I know there have been many changes made to our parks to ensure a successful camping experience for Ontario families. Minister, what can park visitors expect this summer?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I want to thank the member from York North for the excellent question. It's a matter on the minds of many people across Ontario. As many folks in this chamber understand, we have some of the best and most beautiful camping experiences anywhere in the world right here in Ontario. Ontario parks offer the highest levels of facilities of any park system in Canada or the United States. In fact, something that's surprising to many people is the size of our park system.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): How big are they?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Thank you for asking. Ontario's park system is bigger than the total of all 50 states' parks systems put together.

This year, in addition to the beauty and splendour of our parks, we're offering a variety of activities for our visitors. Folklore, which is common in this chamber, and fiddle music will fill Ontario's great outdoors as the Canoe Rendezvous 2000 makes its way through some 24 parks.

In addition, at Algonquin Park, the Algonquin Park Gallery will once again present the works of Tom Thomson and the Group of Seven and 40 of the world's most famous wildlife artists.

Sit down, Mr Speaker, there's more to come.

Last year, there were 9.5 million visitors. We'll have more of them-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary.

Mrs Munro: Thank you, Minister, for that enlightening and entertaining answer. It is certainly gratifying to know about the growing popularity of camping in Ontario parks, given this government's commitment to an enhanced park system.

How have we also increased the ability of people to access our parks through a reservation system?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Again, I thank the member. She points to something of obvious importance to us: services to all the visitors to Ontario parks. Last year we took in 275,000 reservations and we're on track this year at 125,000 to exceed that.

The ways you can make a reservation are, obviously, at the park; you can make a reservation by calling our toll-free number-and I'll say this slowly so the members opposite can write it down-1-888-ONT-PARK; and the member asked about the Web. We have a Web service, www.ontarioparks.com. On that you can virtually visit the parks. You can pick out very particular campsites that you might want for yourself or your family. It's a wonderful service. It exceeds anything available anywhere else in the world and we're darned proud of it.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Minister, a previously unpublished report prepared under the now-defunct Clean Up Rural Beaches program which has been recently released, found dangerously high E coli counts in both the Kettle Creek and Catfish Creek watersheds, parts of both of our ridings. In fact, one count had 4.8 million parts E coli, where 100 parts are acceptable. This is an area where children play and it's used for recreational purposes.

The CURB program would have provided funds to make improvements to such things as manure facilities, but it was cancelled by your ministry in 1996. Kim Smale, the general manager of the Catfish Creek Conservation Authority, said there is no program for water testing currently underway within the watershed.

Minister, there seems to be no one ministry responsible for the coordinated management of ground and surface water. There is no program in place to sufficiently meet the needs of rural communities. What are you doing to make sure that there is a comprehensive water testing program in place for rural creeks and that the tools and the assistance required are provided to those who need to make improvements?

Hon Ernie Hardeman (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I'd like to thank the member opposite for the question and I would like to assure him that we too have concerns about the quality of the surface water in rural Ontario. That's why part of the healthy futures program is designed to do just that-to make sure we have the type of programming to do the best we can to make sure that as small an amount of runoff as possible will reach the rural streams and the rural surface water to cause contamination.

That's why we're working together with the conservation authorities, municipalities or anyone else who would put together a proposal that we could jointly instigate to make sure we have the best possible water quality program we can build in rural Ontario.

Mr Peters: Minister, your much-touted healthy futures program supposedly has high water quality as one of its targets, but the agribusiness approach inherent in the healthy futures program places severe limitations on eligibility. Only six applications have been approved after more than a year in the program. Minister, I remind you that individual farmers are simply not eligible.

In my community, beach postings in the past have had a direct economic impact on tourism. In fact, as we speak, the Kettle Creek Conservation Authority has issued a flood warning. The E coli upstream will be sent downstream to Lake Erie, most likely resulting in further beach postings.

It would appear that there's no one-not your ministry, not the Ministry of the Environment, not the Ministry of Natural Resources-that will take any responsibility for province-wide monitoring, evaluation and maintenance of rural creeks and streams. Minister, you're responsible for rural affairs. Again, what are you going to do to ensure that there is cohesive action taking place across the province to end the contamination of our rural waterways?

Hon Mr Hardeman: I want to assure the member opposite that he is correct, that at the present time we have not had approvals of major projects that deal with a large watershed. We have some applications the panel from the conservation authorities is looking at that deal with exactly the issue the member brought forward. We will be considering that.

The panel will be reviewing those to make sure they meet the water quality initiatives the healthy futures program is designed to address. As expediently as possible we will address those applications and make sure the people of Ontario and the people of rural Ontario benefit from the $90 million we have invested in the healthy futures program to achieve that water quality, the safety of our food and the opening of new markets for our agri-food products.

MINISTRY OF TOURISM

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Tourism. You would probably know of the annual Highlands of Durham Games. I certainly want to invite you to those games from July 20 to 23 in Port Perry and Uxbridge in my riding of Durham. I might also say these games are being held in Minister Ecker's riding of Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge.

Many volunteer organizers have worked very hard to bring these rich cultural events to Durham. Stu Bennett and his volunteer committee must be thanked, along with Mayor Doug Moffatt, Mayor Gerri-Lynn O'Connor, Mayor Keith Shier and Regional Chair Roger Anderson. Of course the federal member is somewhat missing from this wish list, although there is a letter in support from the federal member. He's not really directly involved in this event. Perhaps you could tell us about the exciting tourism promotions you're working on this summer, not just in Durham but in Ontario.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Tourism): I'd like to thank the member for Durham for his question. I know he's been a strong advocate and supporter of the highland games. Ontario boasts over 400 major festivals and events this summer and fall. It's why the government has made such a strong commitment to tourism marketing and promotion in our province.

I received an application from the Highlands of Durham Games with not only the provincial member's letter of support but also an interesting letter from the federal member, who apparently is unaware there is a federal fund he could have applied to. We're going to make sure he's aware that the federal government has some modest dollars for tourism marketing but certainly nothing to compare with the commitment being made.

The member will be advising his community that we've confirmed our support for marketing. As I say, it's of great concern to us that Ontario is not getting its fair share of federal festival dollars. We're not complaining as much as we're ensuring that festival gets support from this provincial government. The federal government obviously should be looking at these festivals to provide support.

Mr O'Toole: I can assure you that I believe the tourism story is a success under your leadership. I can see it with your commitment in my own riding of $15,000 to the Highlands of Durham Games. I thank you, along with the committee members, for that. You could tell us more perhaps about the $50-million-plus that you've added to the Ministry of Tourism budget. Is this in any way matched by the federal government, or are you just doing it on your own?

Hon Mr Jackson: The member has raised a very important question. I think the members of the House should be aware of this. There's a recent

article in the paper, in the Toronto media, that indicates the federal Minister of Public Works, Mr Alfonso Gagliano, has a major fund of about $70 million, of which 70% to 72% goes just to the province of Quebec, and Ontario is only receiving about 7% or 8% of those funds.

That's why the member has raised a concern that his federal Liberal member in his riding has seen fit to write the government of Ontario for support. Apparently they may have given up on the federal government for support for festivals and developments. This is an opportunity for all members of the House. The Liberal tourism critic would be especially well advised to advise his counterparts, his cousins in Ottawa, that for the $60 billion we send in Ontario taxes to Ottawa, we should get back our fair share. That is appropriate. It's important to tourism in this province, and it's a principle of fairness as well.

CAMPING

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. I was really interested to listen to your answer a few minutes ago when you promoted the use of provincial parks in this province, parks that I think are wonderful and that we should be trying to promote. In light of the comments you made in the House just now, is that in any way related to the practice of the Ministry of Natural Resources in northern Ontario, who now are going around with the policy that you're not allowed to park on crown land for more than 21 days total or you'll be evicted?

I'm just wondering if this is a strategy your government is taking to push people off crown land and into provincial parks or private, for-profit campgrounds?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I'm glad the member opposite raises this issue today, because it is obviously an issue of importance not just to the people of northern Ontario but to people who visit the north from southern Ontario and other jurisdictions around the world. Yes, there is a limit, and has been for some time, on how long one can occupy a particular part of crown land. The member opposite will understand there's a distinction between owning a piece of property and enjoying a piece of property that's owned by the public. In Ontario, that length of time is determined to be 21 days.

Mr Bisson: Here's the problem: That policy, as you know, has been on the books dating back to 1970, but no government, including yours, mine or the Liberal predecessors, has ever enforced that policy because we recognize in northern Ontario there's lots of crown land to go around and we don't need to limit people to 21 days camping on land overall. Putting it to you very simply, this is a stupid policy. You're at the point now where you're kicking people off crown land after they've gone 21 days total camping on crown land. In fact, on one occasion I know of, your ministry staff has gone to a camper and spray-painted the bumper to mark it for eviction.

I'm going to put it to you this way: Are you prepared in the House today to say to campers across Ontario, "You're allowed to camp on crown land, and we're not going to limit you to 21 days total," or are you going to push them into private parks and provincial campgrounds?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Let me say that I am very disappointed-I'm being handed a note. Just before I got the note, I was very disappointed. Having read the note, I'm still disappointed in the question from the member opposite, and let me tell you why. The member is suggesting that there's a public policy on how long someone can occupy publicly owned land, land owned by the whole of the public of Ontario. He is suggesting that a policy that's been on the books since the 1970s is the wrong policy. I'd ask him, why didn't you change the policy?

The other part of his question is: He's accusing the government and the people who work in the government of actually enforcing the policy of this province, and I think that's a good thing.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): A question to the Minister of the Environment, and back to the 1998 Provincial Auditor's report. In the second auditor's report, in 1998, the auditor said that the province needed a comprehensive water policy to guard against the concerns he identified both in 1996 and again in 1998.

You said at that time-that is, the Ministry of the Environment-that you were developing a comprehensive plan to deal with these concerns and that that comprehensive plan was going to include a common set of management and protection principles and a clear delineation of roles and responsibilities between the province and local authorities to protect the public health.

My question is: In that comprehensive plan that you said was being developed two years ago, what specific principles did you agree on about responding to the concerns about contaminated water, what were the ingredients of that plan, and did you communicate those principles of your plan to your colleagues across the Ontario government and to various local agencies like people in Walkerton?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): Groundwater protection is an integral part of the province's water management framework. The Ministry of the Environment has worked closely with other ministries, with the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, as well as with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and, I might add, the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, and not only those ministries in our government but also municipal and agency partners, to ensure that groundwater and all our water resources are not only protected but conserved in our province.

The groundwater protection is accomplished through a number of mechanisms, including ongoing operational and monitoring measures. The provincial water protec tion fund funded 34 studies affecting some 88 municipalities-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The minister's time is up. Final supplementary.

Mr Conway: The point is, I say to the Minister of the Environment, your ministry and your government said in the fall of 1998 to the auditor, not for the first time but for a second time, that you were developing a comprehensive plan to protect the public interest around contaminated water. You said that. You said you were working on a plan that was going to be clear around principles and around who does what. That's what you said. That's what you promised.

I ask you, as one honourable member to another-I assume that you were telling the auditor and the Legislature the truth-what were the specific ingredients of the plan you were finalizing in 1998, and beyond the grants you announced a while ago, what were the specific implementation measures you took and announced to people in communities like Walkerton and across the province to keep your word and protect the public health?

Hon Mr Newman: Again, in addition to the 34 studies being funded, the $4.3 million, there was a budget initiative this year of $3.6 million, a groundwater monitoring network in our province, 350 electronic devices in the 36 watersheds so that we're able to monitor groundwater in our province.

SECURITY OF THE LEGISLATIVE PRECINCT

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: It relates to your responsibilities for security in the legislative precinct and the incident that occurred here earlier today. This is a long-held concern of mine, for the safety of members of the assembly. I know that you and your staff will review any breach of security.

I am concerned about the broader implications and the potential for members of the assembly being seriously injured by objects or materials being tossed out of the public galleries on to the heads or backs or bodies of members of this assembly. So I would make a personal request that any review of this incident be looked at in a broader context with respect to the potential for serious injury.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the member. I think that's a concern of all the members. The member may know that the Speaker also has a security committee that is struck that looks into this, with all three parties represented there. We will obviously be taking every incident and we appreciate the member's-I can say very clearly that the issue of security of the members is very important, obviously, to all of us.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: On that point, I was glad you raised the notion of the security committee, of which I am of course a member, but I would like to bring out that this is always a balancing act.

I know that the former Solicitor General is very much aware of that and is a veteran of this place, but we must always keep in mind, and it needs to be on the record when these things are raised, that there is a balance between providing for the security of the public that's here, the staff and the members, but also a recognition that this is a public building, arguably the most public building, and the committee and the Speaker must constantly be struggling with that fair balance between the security of individuals and recognizing that people need and deserve access to their own building.

USE OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FACILITIES

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: On February 24 of this year, you sent a letter addressed to all members of provincial Parliament and staff, and in that letter you raised the issue of members using common areas of the Legislative Assembly for the purpose of conducting partisan media activities.This was in response to a press conference that one of my colleagues had had on a particular issue that was before the Legislature.

I note that yesterday the Minister of Education held a press conference in the corridors of the third floor here which was essentially the same matter, and at this point you have not reissued this letter or brought this matter to people's attention again. I wonder if the contents reflected in your letter dated February 24, 2000, still hold and if they apply equally to the government and to the opposition.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the member for raising that. It does. What we've attempted to do is to get all sides to begin to use the media studio. As you know, we have many guests who come to this building and we do have a good media studio that could be used.

I will say this: What we've attempted to do with all sides is to let them know. It hasn't worked. What I have been doing is keeping copies of the incident reports. I'm not at the point now where I'm going to send constables in the middle of a press conference to pull the plug, as it were, but if that's what it takes, we may have to go that route.

It's always my opinion that the best way to work with honourable members is to let them know, and that most members will be good. If I see it is abused-and I will also say that we are working with the president of the press gallery on this to put together some comprehensive rules. We are coming to the end of the session in a couple of weeks and I would like to begin the next session where we don't have any situations like this. But again, it is not my feeling, as Speaker, that we should send constables in the middle to pull out uni-mikes and so on, but we do want to have a situation where all members abide by that.

I thank the member. I can say very clearly that, as part of a comprehensive policy, we are looking at the whole issue of the media studio, and there are some things we are going to attempt to do to enhance the members wanting to use that media studio as well. When we have the policies, we are going to post them so that everybody knows, all members on all three sides, as well as the press gallery. Then, I will say to all members, we will have to enforce it, up to and including whatever is necessary to ensure the rules aren't broken. Again, just let me say very clearly, it is my hope that in all circumstances I don't have to rush in with, as they would say, a heavy hand in these matters.

I can say very clearly to the member, I do have a copy of the incident report. In this particular case, we advised the Ministry of Education of the circumstances. I will say to the Minister of Education, we do keep copies of what exactly the reply was, and as a result of that we know very clearly whether a member doesn't know, which were some of the circumstances in the beginning. Members didn't know that, in all fairness to new members.

So we now have a file on that and we are going to come out with a comprehensive policy that we will have to ensure gets enforced, because as the member will know, it isn't fair for some members to live by a certain set of rules and not other members. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if it's an announcement by a cabinet minister or a regular member; we're all going to have to live by the same rules.

I thank the member for his attention to that matter.

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [Children]): Mr Speaker, on the same point of order: When you do review this question, I would suggest to you that it probably becomes a very fine line between what constitutes a press conference and a scrum. Any one of us, as members, can have 30 people in a scrum around us at any time, which also, if we extend the

interpretation, could be an inconvenience to visitors to this place. I think the thing we have to remember is that this is a place where the work of Parliament takes place, and the visitors are here as a courtesy. This is where we do our work.

The Speaker: I thank the member for her input. I'm certainly aware of the difference between a scrum, which is spontaneous, and a situation where uni-mikes are set up and there is a planned press conference. I'm definitely aware of the differences.

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Hon Frank Klees (Minister without Portfolio): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask for unanimous consent to make a motion relating to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

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

Hon Mr Klees: I move that, as authorized by each caucus whip, the members of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly or their alternates be authorized to attend the National Conference of State Legislatures.

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

PETITIONS

ABORTION

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I have a petition to the Legislative of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ontario health system is overburdened and unnecessary spending must be cut; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience and finance; and

"Whereas the province has exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health; and

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 46,000 abortions in 1995 at an estimated cost of $25 million;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

I also afix my signature to this petition.

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."

I am sending this petition to the table with page Maria Dombrowsky, representing Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington.

LORD'S PRAYER

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

I sign this so that it becomes an official record in this chamber.

PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I have a petition signed by the residents of Picton, Wellington, Bloomfield, Hillier, Demorestville, Consecon, Ameliasburgh, Milford, Cherry Valley and Belleville to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario government plans to allow private universities into the province;

"Whereas the $40,000-per-year tuition fees will create a two-tier education system and dramatically widen the gap between rich and poor in Ontario;

"Whereas private universities will take away faculty from public universities, who are already understaffed due to government funding cuts;

"Whereas post-secondary education should be accessible to all qualified students and not merely those with a high family income;

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

"(1) to deny private universities entry into Ontario;

"(2) rather than encouraging privatization, to instead restore the funding that has been cut from our public universities so that they will be able to offer higher quality education;

"(3) to end the yearly tuition increases that deter many students from attending university."

I am pleased to add my signature to this petition.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): These are thousands of names from people across the province.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I support this petition.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): I'm pleased, according to the standing orders, to submit a petition on behalf of 30 members of my constituency, two of whom are active members of OECTA. It's with respect to Bill 74. It's a form petition very much like the one the previous member submitted, and I submit it to the Legislature on their behalf as my constituents.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I have a petition signed by 2,000 people who are very strongly opposed to the privatization of our correctional system in the province. The petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas privatization of Ontario's correctional services is wrong and only publicly run and accountable correctional services can be beneficial to taxpayers, employees and those incarcerated,

"Therefore we, the undersigned, demand that the government of Ontario must stop the privatization of any correctional service now."

I have 2,000 names from across my constituency, and I'm very proud to add my name to this petition.

KARLA HOMOLKA

The Acting Speaker (Mr Tony Martin): Further petitions? The member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale.

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do appreciate that. As you saw, I did stand up about 10 times before.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"That the government of Ontario will:

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

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

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

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

I'll attach my name to it.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): 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 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 proudly affix my signature to this petition.

FARMLAND

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): "Whereas Canada's class 1 farmland is a nationally important resource that is fast disappearing; and

"Whereas 8,000 acres of Canada's best farmland north and east of Toronto was expropriated in 1973 to be retained as parkland and farmland in perpetuity; and

"Whereas it was the stated intention of this and previous governments to protect this area, the Rouge-Dufferin Agricultural Preserve, as parkland and farmland forever; and

"Whereas the Ontario Realty Corp is charged with selling this public land; and

"Whereas this sale is being conducted in a manner that threatens the existing community and the future of farming in the agricultural preserve;

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

"We request that the government of Ontario actively seek implementation of agricultural easements on all the farmland in the Rouge-Dufferin Agricultural Preserve;

"We request that the government of Ontario honour the promise of the Chair of Management Board of Cabinet, specifically that the sale of the farmland will be at prices affordable to the farmers to ensure the continuation of farming in the agricultural preserve."

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): "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 geographic locations;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislative Assembly 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."

CO-OP HOUSING

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington): I present a petition on behalf of 16 of my constituents.

"We request that the Ontario government sit down with the co-op housing sector to negotiate a deal which will ensure the long-term financial viability of housing co-ops and the continuance of rent-geared-to-income assistance upon which thousands of co-op members depend, and which will promote greater responsibility for administration by the co-op housing sector and less interference by the government in the day-to-day operations of housing co-ops."

I submit this respectfully.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): 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 the 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 Bill 74 deserves more than a token opportunity for the citizens of Ontario to be heard on this unprecedented attack on the rights of Ontario's partners in education;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to more than the current one and a half days of public hearings on Bill 74."

There are 725 people from Nepean, Ottawa, Gloucester and other parts of this province, among thousands, who have signed this petition. I'd like to sign my agreement with them and also indicate to some of the laughing members opposite that this is not over and there needs to be a proper debate.

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;

"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."

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [Children]): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It is in our standing orders that a member cannot impugn the intent or the words or the actions of another member, and I would ask you to request that the member for Parkdale-High Park apologize for just referring to "laughing" members on this side of the House, who indeed had nothing to do with anything the member was doing when he had the floor. It is beneath even him to make that accusation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Tony Martin): I don't think that was a point of order.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: I ruled that I didn't think it was a point of order.

Orders of the day.

Hon Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker-

The Acting Speaker: Is it the same point of order? Because I have already ruled.

Hon Mrs Marland: No, it is not the same point of order. Perhaps at some time you could advise me, as a member of this Legislature, when raising a question on the orders under which we operate, the standing orders of this House, when those orders are not in effect, how a member can have them made effective by he or she who controls this House, namely, the Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: That's a matter of personal opinion and perspective. That was not a point of order previously, and so I call orders of the day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on June 8, 2000, on the motion for second reading of Bill 81,

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

Loi sur la profession enseignante.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Tony Martin): Pursuant to the order of the House dated June 12, 2000, I am now required to put the question.

Mrs Ecker has moved second reading of Bill 81. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated June 12, 2000, the bill is ordered referred for third reading.

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

Mrs Ecker moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 81,

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

Loi sur la profession enseignante.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): I will be sharing my time with my parliamentary assistant and with the honourable member, Brenda Elliott, whose riding name at the moment, I'm sorry, I have forgotten.

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington): Guelph-Wellington.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Guelph-Wellington, a fine riding. So I will be sharing my time.

When our government launched its education reforms more than five years ago, our primary goal was to offer Ontario students the best-quality education possible. A key part of our quality education agenda is to ensure that schools and our publicly funded education system are safe and respectful places to learn and to teach in. We recognize very clearly that our teachers can't teach and our students can't learn if they're in fear for their safety. In too many classrooms in this province this, sadly, has been the case.

The Safe Schools Act, if approved by this Legislature, takes the steps necessary to ensure that Ontario's school system is the safest and the best that it can be. Parents, students and teachers have told us that they want their schools to be safe, respectful environments for learning and teaching. I don't think there is a person in this House who would disagree with that. Parents have told us that we need to provide more direction to the school system so that students come first. They want our teachers to be skilled and dedicated, as many, many of our teachers are, and they want our school environments to be safe and disciplined.

Bill 81 would do this by giving authority to the provincial code of conduct that I released in April, and it would allow this government to proceed with other initiatives that will promote respect, responsibility and civility in our classrooms.

The provincial code of conduct is a key step in a series of initiatives that will make our schools safer, more respectful environments for learning and for teaching. We want to bring those values back into our classrooms, and the values of good citizenship as well, because we believe that those values of respect, responsibility and good citizenship are very much foundations for our education system. So this code of conduct and the legislation that we are discussing today is very much part of trying to bring that back to our education system.

This is also very much an election commitment, a campaign promise that we made to the voters of Ontario last year. We clearly laid out, based on the consultations that my predecessor had done, how we would respond to that, how to make our schools safer, more respectful, to involve parents in that process. That was very much what we heard from parents around safer schools. Our plan was to have a code of conduct and other safe school initiatives to be phased in step by step, beginning this September. So it was indeed a promise that we made. There was great public support for this promise and so we are moving ahead with this.

Bill 81 directly addresses wh