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

October 18, 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-Oct-18 vol. A (PDF)

L091A - Wed 18 Oct 2000 / Mer 18 oct 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO WHOLE FARM RELIEF

BRAMPTON FIREFIGHTERS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

EDUCATION ISSUES

ERNEST C. DRURY SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

PAROLE SYSTEM

FEDERAL ECONOMIC POLICY

TOM WELLS

SPEAKER'S RULING

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (DISPOSITIFS DE VERROUILLAGE DU SYSTÈME DE DÉMARRAGE)

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

PERSONS DAY

ENERGY RATES

CRIME PREVENTION

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

WATER EXTRACTION

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

PENETANGUISHENE MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

LORD'S PRAYER

HIGHWAY SIGNS

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

LORD'S PRAYER

WATER EXTRACTION

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TOUGHEST ENVIRONMENTAL PENALTIES ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SANCTIONNANT PAR LES PEINES LES PLUS SÉVÈRES DES INFRACTIONS DE NATURE ENVIRONNEMENTALE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO WHOLE FARM RELIEF

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I rise to direct my deep concerns to the Premier about the complete mismanagement of the Ontario whole farm relief program. The inequities of this program resulted in a meeting held by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture recently. Presenters pointed out that there were two different sets of numbers for fair market value on farm products for the 1995-97 crop years. This adds major technical error to a program farmers already criticize as arbitrary and subject to

interpretation. The program is in chaos. Farmers are facing their worst crisis since the Depression. They need the help that OMAFRA should deliver.

Premier, you must step in and fix the problems. You received today a letter from Anne Meighan, a farmer who explains the financial disaster this program has brought on her and other Ontario farmers. She has told you that a legal class action may be necessary to solve the problem. Farmers don't need legal battles with your government, they need help.

In January of this year, when Anne was facing bankruptcy, I sought help directly from an ADM at OMAFRA. He intervened with staff and they helped the farmer. Now, the same staff say an error was made and Anne owes $23,000. What a nightmare.

There is no confidence in this program, Premier. You must get to the bottom of this comedy of errors. You must ensure that the Ontario whole farm relief implements a program that is clear and concise, delivered honestly and without malice to all of Ontario's farmers.

BRAMPTON FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): Recently the Brampton firefighters' combat challenge team has captured its fifth national title and set a new Canadian record. They recently beat a team from Surrey, British Columbia, with a new record of four minutes and 31 seconds, which entitles Brampton to attend the world championships in Las Vegas this November.

The combat challenge consists of an obstacle course where firefighters, wearing full gear and breathing apparatus, run up and down five storeys of stairs carrying 45 pounds of hose, pull up a 42-pound hose, run through obstructions and spray a target using a fully charged hose. The winning team is selected from the three fastest times. In addition to the team setting a new Canadian record, Doug Comeau, the team's coach, was proud to say that several members of the team also accomplished personal bests in different categories.

I wish the Brampton firefighters' combat challenge team the best of luck. I know that colleagues from the Legislature will also wish them well representing not just Brampton but also Ontario and Canada at the world championships in November, when hopefully they will bring home another consecutive world title.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I and so many people in Ontario, all of us, were extremely embarrassed by events that happened in Quebec City this week, where Ontario refused to sign on to a national plan to deal with air emissions, air pollution in this province, with climate change problems that are a challenge for all of us.

Headlines read, "Ontario May Doom Climate Change Deal; Other Governments Furious Over Province's Refusal to Sign Greenhouse Gas Accord;" "Ontario Won't Join National Clean Air Plan." There are quotes from virtually every environmentalist who was there, every objective observer, that Ontario is dragging its feet in this regard.

Today, the environmentalists were welcoming Mr Wilson, the Minister of Energy, and Mr Newman, the Minister of the Environment, back. They said the following:

"The OntAIRio campaign and the Toronto Environmental Alliance delivered `welcome back to earth' gift baskets to Ontario Minister of the Environment Dan Newman and Ontario Minister of Energy. Newman and Wilson are just back from the federal-provincial talks on climate change in Quebec City. At those talks Ontario was the only province not to sign on to a plan to reduce Canada's emissions."

I have a basket I'll be sending over to the Minister of the Environment. It contains a thermometer, which tells us about the earth that is heating up; coal, which reminds us of the coal-fired plants of Ontario Hydro; a polar bear, who is affected by pollution; and a rattle for those who can't play the game with others, who act like children.

It's unfortunate that this has to happen in this province. We used to show so much leadership in Ontario. We used to lead nationally and internationally, and now we have a circumstance where our province is dragging its feet and causing great embarrassment, not only across this country but internationally. I'll ask the page to send this basket across to the minister.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. I'm afraid it is a prop, so I'll ask the page to take it down to the Sergeant at Arms, if he could.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The Sergeant at Arms knows what to do with props. I'm sure he has quite a collection.

EDUCATION ISSUES

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): We all know that communication is a two-way street. Important issues need to be discussed by all stakeholders. Regrettably, this doesn't always happen.

Last week, I was extremely pleased to be invited to a school in my riding of Peterborough for dialogue between myself, representing our provincial government, and a panel of students representing students from several other Peterborough schools from both boards. Some 150 students attended that discussion. Students have told me that they are very frustrated and very much ill-informed. We had open dialogue where students asked me questions on education matters that were concerning them, and I provided them with factual information.

I commend Geoff Fucile, a public school student trustee, who organized the forum. I'm very proud of Geoff and the students who took part for their efforts to ask well-thought-out questions that represented their concerns and those of their fellow students.

I would encourage the members of this House to take opportunities, such as this one offered to me, to help our young people to understand the changes being made to our education system in Ontario, changes being made that will ensure they are able to compete in a world market for their future employment choices.

Also, yesterday I spoke at the Greater Peterborough Chamber of Commerce. I'd like to introduce the president, Mr Peter McLean, Greater Peterborough Chamber of Commerce. Welcome, Peter.

ERNEST C. DRURY SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): My statement is to the Minister of Education. You're trying to sell the playing fields and park portion of E. C. Drury school for the deaf in Milton to a corporate land developer. This inside deal was made with no prior consultation with either the deaf or surrounding communities. Indeed, negotiations for sale were secretly underway long before the property was even declared surplus. This deal stinks so bad the police are now conducting an investigation.

The Milton town council, the Ontario Association for the Deaf and the neighbourhood surrounding the school all oppose this apparent scam. In fact, they are fighting this deal before the Ontario Municipal Board right now. The community wants this deal stopped. This land is a treasured jewel for our deaf population. It serves as the only available location for provincial games for the deaf and as a site for deaf athletes to train from Belleville, London and in fact all across this province.

The deaf have a unique history, language and culture from which we all greatly benefit. It must be protected and it must be strengthened. Minister, you have the opportunity to stand up for the deaf in this province and say this government can't be bought. This government must put the needs of our deaf citizens ahead of corporate interests. Do the right thing now and stop this sale.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Environmentalists welcomed Dan Newman and Mr Wilson back to earth today after having spent some time in Quebec City. Did you know that Ontario is the only province to not sign on? Even Alberta, for heaven's sake, signed on and is taking positive measures to deal with climate change.

The environmentalists presented us-Mr Bradley, the Liberal critic, and I-with two baskets today to deliver to the ministers who were in Quebec. In that basket to welcome them back to earth we have a rattle. The rattle is for the ministers to help with the temper tantrums they throw when other governments actually take action. We have some coal to remind the ministers of their commitment to convert coal into gas at our energy plants. We have a polar bear to remind the minister of the dramatic effects that global warming is having on our natural environment. And we have a book. Many of you have heard of this book, Brave New World, the place where the big lie theory of government originated.

All of these things are in the basket which I am to present to the ministers today. I know we're not allowed to have props in this House, but I'll give you a demonstration of what's in the basket today. We have a rattle to help with their tantrums; we have dirty coal.

This is a disgrace.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the member, and hopefully she'll turn the rattles over the Sergeant at Arms so they could be put to some good use.

PAROLE SYSTEM

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): It's nice to have the member for Thornhill sitting beside me today.

Recently, Canadians learned that former Saskatchewan cabinet minister Colin Thatcher, a man who was convicted of murdering his ex-wife, applied to use the faint hope clause of the Criminal Code to gain early parole. Mr Thatcher was convicted of murder and was sentenced to 25 years in prison without possibility of parole. He has served 16 years of that sentence. Now he is using

section 745.6 of the Criminal Code to request permission to ask for early parole.

My concern is not with Mr Thatcher specifically but with the criminal law. The federal government has heard from the same victims of crime who have called out asking for justice. Throughout the life of the Chrétien government, victims of crime and their advocates have called for repeal of the faint hope clause.

The Mike Harris team has called on the federal government to follow our lead and introduce truth in sentencing and to get rid of the federal discount policy that allows serious criminal offenders out of prisons after having served only two thirds of their sentence.

In Ontario, we are fighting to make our roads, homes and our communities safer. It's about time the federal government in Ottawa started doing something to fight crime too. They could start by repealing the faint hope clause.

FEDERAL ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Mr Speaker, you will no doubt appreciate how surprised we on this side of the House were yesterday when we read that Ernie Eves has finally endorsed the budgetary policies of Paul Martin. Mr Eves was quoted as saying, in reference to this afternoon's budget statement, "I think it's a good thing for Canada. I think all of these moves are good for the Canadian economy." How ironic. For years we've heard nothing but criticism from those-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Will the member take his seat. Stop the clock. Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I can see it's going to be a good day. Since the member was interrupted, we will give him extra time. He may begin over if he'd like.

Mr Duncan: How ironic. For years now we've heard nothing but complaints. You know, it's not the first time Mr Eves has rejected the Alliance. In February of this year, in committee, he said when he was rejecting the cornerstone of the Alliance budgetary policy, the flat tax, "It's not a brand new idea.... It's not a very progressive way of taxing people.... Those people who make more in society should pay more in terms of a higher tax rate."

We can only hope that Mr Eves will take more cues from Paul Martin. Tonight, he might want to attend the big Alliance fundraiser in Toronto.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Will the member take his seat. Stop the clock. Order. The member for Brampton Centre, come to order, please. Sorry for the interruption again.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Could you ask them just to do the 90 seconds again?

The Speaker: He's almost done. But I would ask all members, in question period we can't have that. In members' statements it's usually a situation where we do let all members proceed. The member for Windsor-St Clair, sorry for the interruption.

Mr Duncan: I would encourage Mr Eves to attend tonight's big Alliance fundraiser here in Toronto, to take one more stab at making them see the light of budgetary policy. I should say, at $25,000 a table, that fundraiser bears a closer resemblance to a New Orleans bordello than it does to a political fundraiser. A bunch of really rich guys, their pockets stuffed with money, the aroma of cheap perfume-the perfume of the flat tax being worn by the ladies of the right; and the belle of the ball, of course, at this great extravaganza: Stockwell Day.

All of this being closely scrutinized, encouraged and helped along by the noble madams of Canada's new right, Harris and his Alliance henchmen in Ontario.

TOM WELLS

Mr David Young (Willowdale): Today, I rise in this House to mourn the passing of Tom Wells, a man of integrity, a man of class, a man who, as some have noted in this Legislature, was very much the hub of Progressive Conservative rule in this province for 22 years.

Over the last number of years, Tom resided in the riding of Willowdale, which I have the privilege to represent. I came to know Tom in recent years as a member of the local riding association. I benefited from the insight he shared with me, insight that he gained from decades of public service, service as a school trustee, as a senior cabinet minister and as a tireless community activist, both in and outside of politics.

For me, Tom embodied what most current and fledgling politicians should aspire to in politics: he was a man of conviction; he was a man of dignity; he was a man of his word. Tom proved very clearly that in politics, nice guys not only can finish first, they often are unbeatable.

I offer the condolences of myself, my family and those of my community of Willowdale to Tom's wife, Audrey; his son, Andrew; his daughters, Brenda and Beverley, as well as his two grandchildren.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): On Thursday, October 5, 2000, the member for Windsor-St Clair rose on a point of privilege to indicate that his staff was experiencing problems with the Family Responsibility Office of the Ministry of the Attorney General about matters pertaining to the office dealing with a constituent's concern. In particular, the member indicated that when staff from that office informed his staff that it would not be assisting them because of their high case load, he was precluded from discharging his functions as an MPP. The government House leader also made a submission.

When reserving the ruling last week, I indicated I would be explaining what "parliamentary privilege" means, so let me begin by doing that and referring to standing order 21(a), which states: "Privileges are the rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by the members of the House individually conferred by the Legislative Assembly Act and other statutes, or by practice, precedent, usage and custom."

As the standing order suggests, there are two overriding categories of privilege. The first category consists of privileges that are enjoyed by the House collectively: the power to discipline, the regulation of its own internal affairs, the authority to maintain the attendance and service of its members and the right to institute inquiries and to call witnesses and demand papers, the right to administer oaths to witnesses and the right to publish papers containing defamatory material.

The second category consists of privileges that are enjoyed by individual members: freedom of speech, freedom from arrest and civil action, exemption from jury duty and exemption from attendance as a witness. These collective and individual privileges are examined in considerable detail on pages 71 to 107 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

The authoritative Canadian text on parliamentary practices and procedures also makes clear that members are protected in respect of their parliamentary duties, as opposed to their constituency duties. On pages 90 and 91 it states the following with respect to the rulings of various speakers:

"On July 15, 1980, in finding that there was no prima facie case of privilege in relation to a member's constituency work, Speaker Sauvé stated: `While I am only too aware of the multiple responsibilities, duties, and also the work the member has to do relating to his constituency, as Speaker I am required to consider only those matters which affect the member's parliamentary work. That is to say, whatever duty a member has to his constituents, before a valid question of privilege arises in respect of any alleged interference, such interference must relate to the member's parliamentary duties. In other words, just as a member is protected from anything he does while taking

part in a proceeding in Parliament, so too must an interference relate to the member's role in the context of parliamentary work.'"

At pages 92 and 93, the same text states as follows in reference to a 1978 ruling by Speaker Jerome:

"Speaker Jerome stated, `Since the member was not in the circumstances acting in the official capacities which are surrounded by privilege-that very narrow category-it would, I think, be [an] unwarranted extension of the precedents to extend privilege with respect to

an act which was directed to her person in the circumstances'. In ruling, the Speaker noted that society demands much of members but not all demands strictly impose a parliamentary duty. Every member has duties as a representative of the electorate. A member may only claim the protection of privilege relating to his or her parliamentary duties, "particularly in his primary duty or service to this House of Commons here," though the line distinguishing these duties might blur.'"

Turning to our own House, a Speaker's ruling (at page 74 of the Journals for May 4, 1982) dealt with concerns generally similar to those raised by the member for Windsor-St Clair. That ruling indicates as follows:

"The only standing orders that deal with members obtaining information from the ministry are those dealing with oral and written questions and notices of motion for returns. I know that members do very often telephone directly to a ministry asking for certain information, but unless it can be established that the members have a special right or privilege to use this procedure, which the general public does not have, then it does not concern the House and is not privilege.... It is rather ... a matter between the member and the ministry."

I realize that the member for Windsor-St Clair, like other members, takes his constituency responsibilities seriously. However, the authorities are quite clear that parliamentary privilege does not protect everything a member does. It protects members in the exercise of their parliamentary duties proper, that is to say, with respect to this House and its committees. It does not protect members, like the member in this case at hand, who are engaged in constituency business or other activities that are collateral to their strictly parliamentary responsibilities.

For these reasons, I find that a prima facie case of privilege has not been established.

I thank the member for Windsor-St Clair for raising his point because it afforded me an opportunity to explain the important features about parliamentary privilege to all members.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on regulations and private bills and move its adoption:

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr17,

An Act to change the name of The Corporation of the Township of West Perth to The Corporation of the Municipality of West Perth.

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr2,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Your committee recommends that Bill Pr9,

An Act respecting the city of Toronto, Bill Pr11,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto, and Bill Pr12,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto, be not reported.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (DISPOSITIFS DE VERROUILLAGE DU SYSTÈME DE DÉMARRAGE)

Mr Dunlop moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 131,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to establish an ignition interlock device program / Loi modifiant le Code de la route afin d'établir un programme d'utilisation de dispositifs de verrouillage du système de démarrage.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Mr Speaker, this is an amendment to my previous bill. It amends the Highway Traffic Act to provide for the implementation of an ignition interlock program in Ontario for persons who violate laws related to drinking and driving.

The Speaker: Motions?

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

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My first question today is for the Minister of Health. Something extraordinary happened yesterday at the estimates committee hearings when you were asked about the fact that this 140-page document, prepared over a great length of time by your own staff, confirms something we've been talking about for quite some time, and that is the fact that you are now spending less in health than you have in the past. In fact, this document, your document, tells us that you're spending $1.5 billion less in the 1999-2000 fiscal year than you did in the 1998-99 fiscal year.

For months, in fact years, you've been standing up there in your place and telling us that these problems we are experiencing, terrible problems on the front lines, are in no way due to the fact of cuts that are found within your ministry. Your document itself tells us you're spending $1.5 billion less. Will you now confirm for us that this is the case?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): First of all, let me indicate I was most displeased with the information that was provided in this year's tabled estimates. As I indicated yesterday, the ministry is currently reviewing this issue. I can assure you, at a first review, that it appears to be limited to an administrative error that does not impact on the estimates information voted on before the committee.

Mr McGuinty: You tell us you're spending $1 billion more; this document tells us you're spending $1.5 billion less. This administrative error that you refer to is $2.5 billion worth of mistakes. That's what we're talking about here. This is your document. It says "Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Estimates Briefing Book 2000-01, Elizabeth Witmer, Minister." You're telling us that we can't rely on your information as found within this document.

There's something else that we picked up recently. Maybe you can speak to that. You've been telling us that you're spending more in Ontario hospitals, particularly GTA hospitals. Here's a confidential Ministry of Health document recently filed at the Joshua Fleuelling inquest. Do you know what it tells us? You are spending $88 million less this year on GTA hospitals than you spent last year. But you, on the other hand, stand up and tell us that you're spending more.

Can you tell me, in this particular instance, whom we should believe? Should we believe your ministry documents or should we believe you?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I think this is another example of fearmongering. There's only one government in Canada that has decreased the amount of funding available for health services in the province of Ontario and throughout all of Canada. The only government that has taken away money from provinces and territories is the federal government.

In fact, I am very disappointed to tell you that they made announcements recently indicating that there had been an agreement reached between the provinces and territories. I am disappointed to tell the House here today that the bill that would have provided additional money for medical equipment has not yet been passed by the federal government. If an election were to be called on Sunday, it now appears we would not be getting that money and we would still only be funded 10 cents on every dollar.

Mr McGuinty: I can see why the minister wants to talk about anything other than the fact that her own ministry information is telling us that-first of all, in your estimates briefing book it's telling us that you in fact spent $1.5 billion less this year than in the year before. When we look at your confidential document filed at the Joshua Fleuelling inquest, it tells us that you are spending $88 million less in GTA hospitals than you were prepared to admit in this House. Maybe the real proof, Minister, can be found on the front lines of Ontario patient care, and maybe you won't deny this.

Listen to this: in Peterborough, 16 surgeries have been cancelled in just over one month; a few weeks ago at the Ottawa Hospital they cancelled 18 operations, including an operation for a woman who had been waiting for five days to have her broken forearm set; earlier this week, more and more surgeries have been cancelled in Hamilton.

This is the real, live evidence backing up the fact that you have, in fact, been making cuts to your ministry. Why don't you, for the first time ever, be honest when it comes to this issue and admit to the fact that you've been making cuts to your ministry?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The Leader of the Opposition obviously doesn't understand that each year since 1995 we have been increasing funding at the Ministry of Health. The only government which doesn't and hasn't increased funding is the federal government. We are, as he knows, providing additional money for hospitals. We are presently at-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Minister, take your seat. There's too much of a roar. We can't hear. If we do that, we're not going to have a question period. We'll just sit here and watch the clock tick down. Minister of Health.

Hon Mrs Witmer: We have increased the funding. We have been working with our hospital stakeholders. In fact, if the Leader of the Opposition wanted to be absolutely correct, he would reflect the fact that the CEOs throughout the province of Ontario, people in the emergency rooms, are indicating that there are improvements, that our government for the first time has acknowledged that there are problems, problems that are 15 and 20 years old, but we have had the courage to address them. We are working forward with a comprehensive-

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Minister, just when we thought it would be impossible to further disappoint the people of this province, when we thought it would be further impossible for you to renounce your responsibilities to fight against polluters and for clean air, you sank to a new low yesterday when you represented the only province that walked out of a deal that is about to be inked by nine other provinces, together with the federal government, which is going to go a long way toward protecting the quality of our air in our province.

You made it perfectly clear yesterday that in a fight against polluters you have chosen to stand with the polluters and against clean air and against the interests of Ontarians.

Tell us right now, Minister, why is it that you found it impossible to sign on to a deal which is obviously in the interests of Ontarians?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): On this issue, the Leader of the Opposition has it all wrong yet again. I say to him that all Ontarians deserve clean air, and climate change is indeed a global problem.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Minister, take a seat. We'll just wait.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Now I'm going to give a warning to the member for Hamilton East. Come to order, please.

Hon Mr Newman: The member for Hamilton East is right, the federal government was wrong, because they didn't want to bring forward national standards. That's what we were fighting for, for national standards. We wanted to also see some international leadership shown by the federal government. But just like the Canada-US ozone agreement, they dropped the ball on this one; they sold Canada out. In fact, in Quebec City at the joint ministers' meeting, Minister Wilson and myself were there demanding that the federal government show some international leadership and establish tough national standards for climate change. They failed Ontarians, and I believe they failed all Canadians.

When we went to that conference, we issued four challenges to other provinces and to the federal government, which are based on programs we already have in place here in Ontario. We asked that there be a vehicle emissions program in place in all provinces and jurisdictions in Canada, just like we have in Ontario. We asked all the provinces to match the Ontario-

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

Mr McGuinty: I'm sure you heard some of the comments made by people who have devoted their lives to cleaning up Ontario air. This is what John Bennett of the Sierra Club said: "Your plan is weak. You're not a leader. You are standing up here and you are lying.... You've cut back on every program that existed when you came into office."

The Speaker: Order. You can't use that language in here quoting something. You can't do something that you can't do. I would ask all members to watch their language. What happens then is the other side just yells back. I know he's quoting from somebody else, but using language like that is not helpful. I would ask the honourable leader of the official opposition to be careful using that. All it does is inflame things and all we'll end up doing is yelling back and forth when that happens.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: My understanding is that Speaker Warner allowed a similar quote into debate about five years ago in this House, and I would ask you to check that.

The Speaker: I will check that, but I'm not going to allow it. What we can't do is have situations-

Interjection.

The Speaker: Thank you very much to the Minister of Labour. I appreciate his help. If you would stay out of it that would be very helpful. It doesn't help when you yell across the floor while I'm standing up. I appreciate it.

The leader of the official opposition.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: May I ask why he doesn't have to withdraw the statement?

The Speaker: I've warned him, and I thank the Minister of Labour very much. I've warned him about it. He is quoting from somebody else. I say to both sides, that's what happens when we get into situations like this. I know you're quoting somebody else, but if you do that, all we're going to end up doing is yelling back and forth. I thank the Minister of Labour for his comments, but I'll handle it.

The leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I've just watched two minutes of question period time go down the drain while we're engaged in something you've already ruled on.

The Speaker: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I will say to the member that we have got more questions, and as you know, it's our intention to get down there. I will say to the leader of the third party that on some occasions we don't get down there. There were two occasions: on one occasion last week where your member from Timmins-James Bay did a point of order, and also on one occasion your member for Toronto-Danforth got named. So there will be some days when we will get down there; there will be other days when we do not get down to that type of question. This is probably one of the days when we won't get down.

Leader of the official opposition for a supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: To continue with the Sierra Club's quote, "You've cut back on every program that existed when you came into office."

This is what the David Suzuki Foundation had to say: "It's ludicrous. Ontario is lagging behind damn near every jurisdiction in North America when it comes to greenhouse gases. They simply don't know what they're talking about."

They are confirming what we have said over and over again. There are 1,900 Ontarians who are dying prematurely every year as a result of breathing bad air. We've had a 400-fold increase in childhood asthma rates here in Ontario. We are the second-worst polluter in North America. All of this has happened on your watch. I ask you again: why are you refusing to ink a deal that is in the interest of Ontarians?

Hon Mr Newman: Yesterday's agreement failed to set out national standards for all Canadians. It didn't meet our demands of offering Canadians an effective, environmentally useful way to address the issue of climate change. They asked us to bring our ideas to the table. That was the challenge in Vancouver in March of this year. We did. Our approach, if nationally adopted-

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member take his seat. If you want to yell, there won't be any questions. If you want me to stand here for the entire hour, I'm in good enough shape, I can stand here for 45 minutes. There will be no question period in the province of Ontario.

The childishness of yelling like that because of rulings isn't going to work with me. If you think I'm going to back down, I'm not. The time can continue to run down. We're going to have some semblance of order so I can hear the answer, or there will be no question in the province. It's as simple as that.

Minister of the Environment.

Hon Mr Newman: Yesterday's agreement failed to set national standards and it didn't meet our demands-

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member take his seat. That's the last warning to the member for Niagara Centre. We're not going to have a situation where, when I've sat down, you immediately yell out. This is his last warning. If he wants to do it again, we'll name him and he can spend the afternoon in his office.

Minister of the Environment.

Hon Mr Newman: Yesterday's agreement failed to set out national standards. It didn't meet our demands of offering Canadians an effective, environmentally useful way to address climate change. We were asked to bring ideas to the table, and we did. Quite frankly, our ideas and our approach, if nationally adopted, would bring us clearly a third of the way to our Kyoto target. The agreement will be used to put Canada's position forward at the Conference of Parties at the Hague in November-

The Speaker: I'm afraid the member's time is up. Final supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: What you did yesterday was a pathetic abdication of your responsibility not only to the people of this province but to this country. We are now North America's second worst polluter. We not only owe it to Ontarians but we owe it to our neighbours in other provinces right across this country and to our American cousins to clean up our own act.

There's only one person who can crack down on polluters in Ontario. That's you. That's your job. That's your responsibility. You are failing to live up to that responsibility, and the people of this province are continuing to pay the price. They're getting sick. Our health care costs are going up as a result.

The Speaker: The question has been asked. Minister of the Environment.

Hon Mr Newman: The federal government struck out on three fronts in the past week. They failed to deliver in last week's smog talks with the United States. We clearly gave the federal government a 44% reduction to bring to the table, and they couldn't even get a similar reduction out of the United States. All they could get was 36% from the United States, and somehow they're championing this as some sort of victory. They sold all Canadians out. That's the first strike against the federal government.

Strike two is that they failed-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister, take a seat. This is the last warning for the member for Timmins-James Bay as well. If he continues to shout out, he'll be named. If you want to go through the entire list, I'll continue to do it. We're not going to have a situation where one rotates and somebody else yells. If I can't hear, you're going to be named; you spend the afternoon in the office. It doesn't matter to me.

Minister of the Environment.

Hon Mr Newman: As I was mentioning how the federal government struck out at the ozone annex talks, they also failed, strike two, to deliver again when they-

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): How does Canada go to the environmental table?

The Speaker: Member, take a seat. Last warning for the member for Beaches-East York as well. The last warning for the members for Timmins-James Bay, Niagara Centre and Beaches-East York. We're not even going to get to your leader's first question the way we're going.

Minister of the Environment.

Hon Mr Newman: The federal government struck out at the ozone annex negotiations. That was strike one. They struck out again yesterday at the joint ministers'-

Interjections.

The Speaker: This is the last warning to the entire caucus of the NDP. If anybody shouts out again, you're going to be removed. We're not going to rotate with people. When I go home at night, I wonder why my legs are tired, and now I know, from getting up and down so much. I've never been in as good shape. But we're not going to continue. This is the last warning for the entire caucus. If you continue to shout out like that, I'm going to name you.

I believe it is the Minister of the Environment wrapping up.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I realize that you are cautioning the whole caucus here, but I want to make it clear that I, as an individual member, have not been shouting here and I-

The Speaker: I understand that. I appreciate that. The member is right, although I could add it's one of the few days that she doesn't yell, if I wanted to.

The situation is this: when I've warned a couple of members and the same caucus rotates and somebody else yells out, we can't have that. It is a little bit funny, I guess, to do that, but we can't have people rotating shouting. If you're going to do that, then it doesn't matter, we just won't have any questions or I'll name you, one or the other.

Mr Hampton: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It seems to me that you cannot judge one member's decorum based on someone else's behaviour. It seems to me that is an infringement-

The Speaker: You know what I say to the leader of the third party? I don't even need to give the warnings. I could have had three of your members already thrown out. If you'd rather have that, where there's no warning and members get thrown out, we can do that.

What I want to do is make it clear to everybody that when you get down to your last warning, and I say this with all due respect, most members are very good when we do get down to the last warning. In fact, some members, so they don't yell out, will actually leave the chamber. I do that because I want to be very careful that members know very clearly that they are at their last warning. By the same token, I'm not going to have a situation where I warn one or two members and other members of the caucus then begin shouting out.

We're not going to have that type of circus in here, and if you do that, we're going to name you. I have done that in the past with the Liberal Party when they've done it. I'm doing it to the NDP on this occasion. If you shout out, yell and interrupt and I have to stand up again, you will be named and there will be no warning.

Ms Lankin: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I understand the letter of your ruling. I don't understand the impact of your ruling. Are you suggesting that if another member of the New Democratic Party at this point in time calls out, you will eject the entire caucus, including the member from Riverdale?

The Speaker: No, the member who shouts out will be. Let me say this: the members of the NDP caucus have been very good about being well behaved and getting down to the question. It appears we're not going to get to that question.

Mr Hampton: Why bother?

The Speaker: That's the same. The leader of the third party says, "Why bother?" We have got to those questions more times than any other Parliament. The way it's going now, with 40 minutes we're not even going to get the leaders' questions.

I'll say it again: it doesn't matter to me if we get one question or 15 questions. The one thing I will say to all members is that we will maintain order in here, and if anybody wants to challenge me on that, go ahead. You've seen in the past that I'm not prepared to back down, and I'm not prepared to back down in this case. One of two things will happen.

Either we will spend the entire afternoon watching me stand here and have no questions in Ontario or I will name as many members as it takes, but we are not going to have a situation where you fly in the face of my ruling and immediately upon sitting down, when I ask for order, you yell out. If you want to do that, you can yell all you want. You'll do it in your office in front of your own TV.

Ten seconds to wrap up for the Minister of the Environment.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I've not been engaging in the back and forth here this afternoon. I feel my personal privileges are now under attack by yourself-

The Speaker: I appreciate the opportunity.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member take his seat.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member take his seat, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member take his seat, please. This is the third time I've asked the member to take his seat. If he doesn't take his seat, he'll be named. Thank you very much.

We've got about 10 seconds to wrap up for the Minister of the Environment and then I believe we're down to the leader of-

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: You would know that the minister of the environment met in Quebec City, and I would ask for unanimous consent that the Minister of the Environment be named as the dolt of the ministers of the environment-

The Speaker: Order. Unanimous consent? I heard a no. Ten seconds, the Minister of the Environment.

Hon Mr Newman: The point I was trying to make 15 minutes ago was that the federal government struck out three times. They struck out on the ozone annex with the United States. They struck out at the joint ministers' meeting by failing to have national standards, and they failed again with the COP6 coming up by failing to show international leadership.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Very quickly, last week the Liberal House leader rose on a point of order. I listened carefully to it, I made some comments in response to that point of order and I listened carefully to your response. That was with respect to this concept of collective naming, which the Liberal House leader maintained is not permitted by virtue of the standing orders.

I indicated at the time that I myself accepted the right of the Speaker to admonish a caucus. I understand that and I accept that the Speaker has admonished this caucus. I also understand that there's a difference between admonishing-and I put this to you, Speaker, on this point of order-and naming, and that naming is a prerequisite before ousting.

I understand that I have been warned. I risk being named, which means I'll be escorted out of here should I engage in anything that the Speaker finds, according to the rules, to be inappropriate. But with respect, Speaker, knowing full well that you have the right to admonish a caucus, I submit to you that the rules of the standing orders very specifically require you to identify a given member as the House leader for the Liberal Party has indicated-

The Speaker: I've got the gist of the point of order, and I'll say it for the last time. There are provisions for group naming in the standing orders. Hopefully, we'll never have to get to that point, but there are. You can name two or three members at the same time. Hopefully, we'll never get to a situation of doing that.

Do you know how we can solve all this? If members would behave and not shout out when people are trying to answer the questions. It's as simple as that. You can ask points of order all you want, all afternoon and waste the entire time or we can get down-which I think the people of Ontario want-to asking some tough questions of the government of the day. It's entirely up to the members how they want to do it.

It's now time for the leader of the third party's first question.

Point of order?

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Given the argument that was just made, and having listened to your answer, it would be very helpful to me if you could just indicate where in the rules you are saying that the group naming applies. I'm not familiar with that. If you could just, through the assistance of the Clerk, help me out.

The Speaker: It's on page 398 of Parliamentary Practice, Erskine May. I will read it out to you: "Not more than one member may be named at a time unless several members present together have jointly disregarded the authority" of the Speaker. It's there in writing for every member to take a look at.

It is now time for the leader of the third party.

Mr Kormos: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I understand Erskine May as well as other treatises or texts containing precedents from a number of Commonwealth jurisdictions. With respect, Speaker, our standing orders speak for themselves. I understand that if a precedent is clarified in Erskine May or in other authorities to help interpret our standing orders, that is to be applied by the Speaker by virtue of-what do lawyers call it?-stare decisis.

The Speaker: I thank the member-

Interjection.

The Speaker: We can stand here and debate Erskine May. As you know, it is standard practice to refer to Erskine May, which we've done in a number of rulings, and not only here; in the House of Commons and in every Parliament across Canada. That is standard practice. If the member wants to look it up, it's there in black and white. We can show him the one.

It is now time for the leader of the third party's first question, I believe.

Mr Hampton: My question is for the Premier. Today your government is a national embarrassment when it comes to the issue of global warming. At a time when the Ontario Medical Association tells us that 1,800 Ontario citizens die every year from the effects of smog, your government was the only government in the country to fail to sign on to a strategy to reduce the emission of gases that cause climate change. Even Alberta signed on; even Quebec, which hardly ever signs on, agreed to sign on; and Ontario is an embarrassment.

Premier, when are you and your government going to take the prevention of pollution seriously? What's it going to take?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'm happy to take the first question. I will certainly refer the details to the minister who, in Quebec City, was the only minister to talk about a national plan with national standards. You're right that Alberta agreed to the plan. According to the

article you're all quoting from, here's what Alberta agreed to: they're going to retrofit some schools to make them more energy-efficient. Boy, I'm going to tell you that's leadership.

With all the coal-fired plants, 23 coal-fired plants across the country, we took a leadership role and said: "We're prepared to do better. But surely every plant in Canada has to do better. Surely we've got to take a national strategy. Surely you're not going to sign an international agreement that condones every state in the United States with more emissions per electron, with more overall emissions than Ontario."

Our plan, if we have to go it alone, will lead all of Canada, will lead all of the states that we're dealing with. It will be the only credible plan for smog reduction, for emission reduction that's available across Canada.

Mr Hampton: If the Premier is leading-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member take his seat.

Mr Hampton: You've done it once. You should do it again. You should be naming the whole caucus. Next time they interrupt, out they go.

The Speaker: This is the leader of the third party's last warning. Last warning. Another outburst like that and I'll name him.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Fine by me. You've got the next question. If you want it, you can take it; if you want to be named, you can be named. It doesn't matter to me.

The leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: Thank you, Speaker. Premier, if you're leading, then the whole world, according to your standards, is going backwards, because this is what you've done: you cancelled support for public transit in this province, which means more cars, which means more smog, which means more air pollution. You have allowed Ontario Power Generation to increase their greenhouse gases by 34% since you became the government, which means more smog, more pollution, more people die.

You have repealed sections of the Planning Act, which allows for more urban sprawl, which means more cars, which means more air pollution, more people die. You cancelled the Home Green Up program doing retrofits to reduce energy use. At least Alberta is going to do something. You cancelled what was in place and then you cancelled the ban on new municipal incinerators, which means more air pollution, more people die. Premier, is that what you and your government call leadership?

Hon Mr Harris: The national plan, as presented by the federal Minister of the Environment, is one of the cruellest hoaxes and jokes that we have ever seen. The national plan says it's up to the provinces to do what we want. Some provinces say they're going to do more in transit. After billions of dollars, they will still be way behind Ontario in transit. We in fact, two years ago, committed $2.5 billion a year in tax points to municipal transit and transportation efforts at the request of the municipalities. That is an ongoing commitment that is there.

If you think that Alberta, with seven coal-fired plants, all of them spewing far more emissions into the air than our coal-fired plants, at a time when we have lower electron emissions than Alberta does-we're prepared to go even lower. We're lower than all the US states on the borders there and we're prepared to go lower. The federal government wants to give them all-

The Speaker: The Premier's time is up. Final supplementary.

Ms Churley: The only leading that you are doing is leading thousands of people to their death in Ontario. That is the reality of your leadership and it is well documented. In fact, you have made things worse. It seems to me, from what I've heard, that your idea of a national program is to bring in vehicle emissions testing programs in rural PEI. Give us a break here. This is a joke. People are dying.

Premier, I say to you today, admit the truth that not only are you not only moving forward, you have cancelled programs that the NDP put in place and you are going backwards. Will you ask your Minister of the Environment to resign today and put somebody in there who will take the deaths of the people of Ontario seriously and do something about it once and for all?

Hon Mr Harris: No.

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development. Two weeks ago, the Minister for Economic Development was telling truckers across Ontario that he was going to ensure that they were not stuck with bearing the costs of higher fuel prices. He even said that he was going to legislate, if necessary, to make sure they got a fair deal.

The minister's cynical game has been discovered. We now know that you have no intention of legislating. We now know that you, for all your brave talk, aren't going to do anything to stop the shippers and the corporations from sticking the truckers with the costs of higher fuel. You know what this means. It's going to mean blockades. It's going to mean disruptions. It's going to mean all kinds of difficult situations for people who are trying to earn a living.

Minister, why did you promise truckers that you were going to pass legislation to help them, to make sure they weren't stuck with the full cost of higher fuel prices, when you had absolutely no intention of ever introducing and passing legislation? Why did you engage in such a cynical game?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): If the honourable member from the third party thinks we're playing a game, I'm disappointed, just as I was disappointed that the independent trucker owner-operators turned down the proposal on a plan that was put together by the industry. Our government has always said that we need to come up with industry-led solutions, and our government has helped facilitate those meetings, putting things in place so we could actually allow industry to do the right thing within their own group, in their own corps.

I am happy to say that the shippers and the carriers have come to the table with a proposed plan that can work. Now all we need is for the trucking industry, the owner-operators, to come prepared, at least with their leaders, and negotiate and talk about it in a democratic way rather than doing things in a disruptive way.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Minister, you entered into the debate clearly saying that you're going to help the truckers. That was the purpose of the discussion. They understood, you understand and we all understand that the issue is that the shippers don't want to pay more and they're not about to agree to something that's going to cost them more money in the end.

You said quite categorically that you were going to put fuel escalation clauses in the contracts and if the shippers didn't agree, you were going to legislate. There are truckers all across this province-in northern Ontario, in my home community of Timmins, in Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton, Kenora-who are going to lose their rigs because you're playing politics.

You got into this for a photo op and now you're doing absolutely nothing to assist the truckers. Will you get out of the back pocket of the shippers and for once help the independent truckers?

Hon Mr Palladini: I have been acting as an emissary for the truckers, for the trucking industry, because I know the predicament they're in. I understand the difficulties they face. That's the reason I have been facilitating those meetings with the shippers and the carriers.

Legislation, as I said we would consider doing, is not the answer. Legislation in Ontario, a regulation, will-

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Timmins-James Bay, that's it. You can't shout out like that. You asked the question. I name him and ask Mr Bisson to leave for the remainder of the day.

Mr Bisson was escorted from the chamber.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I refer you to rules 15, 16, and rule 1 of the standing orders. I am not challenging the Chair. I understand what the Speaker has said.

Speaker, may I submit to you, especially in terms of what rule 1 says, that "in contingencies not provided for" you of course decide the matter, as you have, and you can of course rely upon "applicable usages and precedents of this Legislature and parliamentary tradition"-however, it also indicates that your rationale or your position must be based on "the democratic rights of members referred to in clause (b)," which is, to wit, these members.

I suspect, Speaker, that we all of us may be embarking on very dangerous turf in terms of having addressed this matter too promptly or at least in too rushed a manner. I know that I risk being named and ousted should I do anything inappropriate. I also fear, though, that by virtue of my conduct, I've put some of my colleagues at risk of being named. I submit to you that that is in direct violation of paragraph (

b) of standing order 1.

Speaker, I would put to you that we not address this matter today. I would ask you to defer making any hard and fast ruling-and I refer to standing order 16, of course, which says that in the case of mass or grave disorder you can shut the operation down. I submit to you that you defer any hard and fast decision until we get to debate this and discuss it in a more-

The Speaker: No, it is not a point of order. The decision has been made. We're going to maintain order in here. As for democratic rights, you do have democratic rights. The only thing you can't do is disrupt the duly elected Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, and if you do that, you'll be asked to leave. Sometimes that's yelling out where I can't hear. All we ask of all members is that they behave. I've said it before. There will be some shouting out. It will not be quiet in here.

We're talking emotional issues, and so occasionally there will be some shouting out, but we're not going to have a situation where people just continually shout across. If there's a situation like that, members will be named and they will be removed. We are going to do one thing in the province of Ontario: we're going to maintain order in this House or members will be asked to leave. It's as simple as that. So I say to the member, we have discussed this. He can continue to get up on points of order. I am not going to change my mind; that's the way it's going to be.

New question, the leader of the official opposition.

Hon Mr Palladini: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe that the member for Timmins-James Bay had asked me a question, and I thought I had some time left so I could give him the answer. I know he's not in the-

The Speaker: I think your time was just about up anyway. In all the wonderful commotion, I have missed the time, but I think we were pretty well up. My apologies to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade if I am wrong. During the commotion, you sometimes do lose track of the time.

It is now time for the leader of the official opposition's question.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. This trucking crisis is looming larger with each passing day, and more and more Ontarians are coming to understand that trucks bring the parts for our cars, they bring the food for our kids and they even bring things like medical equipment for our hospitals. Of course, we're talking about a huge number of truckers, who have responsibilities to their families.

We have taken some assurance, some hope in the fact that you led us to believe if things continued to go awry, you would step in and fix them. In fact, your minister said, on September 22, "I do believe that the industry can police itself, but if they refuse to do that, then we will regulate." I'm just wondering, Premier, do you agree with your minister, who maintains that if this can't resolve itself, we will regulate?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The minister has involved himself and the government in two ways: first of all to take a leadership role and set an example. With all contracts that we have, we have insisted that where truckers are involved we will increase our payment to those contracts, and that must be flowed to the truckers involved. This is a very important precedent, and then of course we are asking the private sector which has contracts with truckers to do the same.

The second area in which the minister has taken a role is to facilitate on behalf of the truckers, bringing them together and using his office to facilitate as best he can. He said he would look at all options, including regulatory options, and the overwhelming number of truckers and the trucking associations have said, "Minister, provincial regulation alone would be far worse than what you've already negotiated and have on the table." Accepting that advice, the minister has continued to try to mediate and improve-

The Speaker: The Premier's time is up.

Mr McGuinty: I guess this is becoming a bit of a pattern. It's another public humiliation of a minister. Last week, I asked the Attorney General and the Minister of Municipal Affairs if they might address a particular problem. They took a particular position. The following day you took a different position. Just a few weeks ago, this minister said that if matters couldn't resolve themselves, he was going to step in and regulate, he was going to pass a law here in Ontario. Now you're telling me, no, that is not in fact the case.

Is this going to be an ongoing pattern now: a regular and public humiliation and embarrassment of your ministers, who say one thing one day only to be overruled on another day by you?

This minister said he would legislate. He said he would regulate. He said he would fix this problem and, in so doing, held out some hope for truckers and the people of this province. You are now pulling the rug out from under him. I'm just wondering, Premier, are you going to do this on an ongoing basis?

Hon Mr Harris: This minister indicated he was prepared to look at all options. I can tell you already that with the offer we have made to all of our contracts that involve truckers and the negotiated agreements that are in place so far, the vast majority of the truckers, independent and otherwise under the associations, have said, "Minister, what you are doing and what is already on the table obviously is far better than any provincial-only regulation, given that 86% of the trucking industry in Ontario is regulated federally, given the international and national nature of trucking."

They have rejected this option that the minister has said he was prepared to discuss with the industry and with the truckers. They have said, "Thank you very much. What you are negotiating and doing is far better than any provincial-only regulation." So, unlike you, we actually listen to people when we're in there trying to facilitate solutions.

PERSONS DAY

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. Today, October 18, is Persons Day in Canada. As the minister responsible for women, can you explain the significance of this day to the people of Ontario?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, minister responsible for seniors and women): I'd like to thank the member for York North for her question. Persons Day honours the genuine milestones that women have made in this great country. In 1929, the Privy Council ruled that women were included in the definition of "persons." Women were therefore declared to be persons in the eyes of the law all across this country. We owe this landmark ruling to five outstanding Canadian women who took their fight both to the Supreme Court of Canada and to the Privy Council in England.

These five women helped change the lives of women for future generations. Thanks to the legacy of these five women, women have taken a leadership role in virtually all areas of society.

In politics I'm thinking of women like Ellen Fairclough, the first woman to serve in the federal cabinet, as a minister of the Conservative government of John Diefenbaker in 1957. I'm also thinking of other women who have made their mark. For example, in Ontario we think of Lyn McLeod, the first woman who ran for Premier of this great province. We also think of Frances Lankin and the Honourable Dianne Cunningham, who each ran to be leader of their party, and of all women who have made a difference and made a statement with dignity and honour in this province.

We should be proud of them all, and this is a great day.

Mrs Munro: In honour of Persons Day, of those women who fought for legal recognition, what are you doing to ensure that women in Ontario achieve a measure of economic independence?

Hon Mrs Johns: In this province, one of the goals of the women's directorate is to make sure that economic independence is a priority of this government. My ministry has developed several programs to assist women in participating in areas of the economy where they traditionally have been underrepresented, programs like the $5.8 million invested in the women in skilled trades initiative designed to increase the participation of women in the automotive parts industry, and the $2 million which is used to increase the participation of women in the technology sector. The 2000 budget provided increased access to capital for woman entrepreneurs in small communities. We work hard to make sure-

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

New question. The member for Renfrew.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I raise once again my concern about the ruling you made. I would ask for clarification as to whether or not-

The Speaker: Will the member take his seat. We're not going to get into doing this. We've had the ruling. I've made my ruling. The member might not like the ruling, but that's the way it's going to operate in here. I'm sorry the member doesn't like that. We're not going to get up on points of order and waste valuable time. I've now had to stop the clock. As you know, on a number of occasions I have stopped the clock in order for the third party to get down to their question. I've worked very hard to do that, and I've done that by making sure we maintain order in this House, and we're going to do it.

If there's another point of order, which I take seriously, I'm going to get up very quickly. But you're not going to go on, and if it's on the same subject you're not going to have any debate on it. There is no debate on it. The ruling is there and that's the way it's going to be in this Legislature.

The member for Renfrew. Sorry for the interruption.

ENERGY RATES

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is to the Minister of Energy and it concerns rapidly increasing energy costs for Ontario consumers and businesses for the upcoming fall and winter. Millions of Ontarians awakened this morning to the shivering news that the Ontario Energy Board has just approved a 45% increase in natural gas prices effective October 1, 2000, for gas distributors in the province of Ontario.

My first question to you is, what, if any, relief does the Harris government propose to offer, particularly to those hundreds of thousands of senior citizens and low-income individuals who are going to face increased costs in the order of $450 to $500 per household this winter?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): Yes, a couple of weeks ago the Ontario Energy Board did approve an increase in natural gas prices. Everyone should know that the company that distributes natural gas, Enbridge in this case, is not allowed a profit at all on that gas; that is the actual cost of gas. The only thing they're allowed to include in addition to the wellhead cost of gas is the distribution cost. That's why we have the Ontario Energy Board there, to make sure that it acts in the best interests of consumers.

Certainly it's a difficult situation. Supply is being exceeded by rapidly increasing demand right across North America. In fact it's a worldwide problem at the moment. We expect to see prices come down in about eight to 12 months, and things should level out at that time.

Mr Conway: The second question concerns electricity, because it's quite clear from the recent ruling of the Ontario Energy Board, in response to your directive earlier this year, that electricity rates are going up.

Let me read from the Ontario Energy Board decision of September 29, 2000, a decision in which the energy board says that on the basis of the evidence presented to it in the hearing this past summer, they-that is, the Ontario Energy Board-conclude that when the electricity market opens in Ontario, in the next few months presumably, and when your government decides to lift its five-year freeze on electricity rates-and that freeze is expected to be lifted at the end of December of this year-the millions of consumers of electricity in the province can expect, minimally, a 13% increase in their electricity bill.

Minister, can you tell this House when the five-year rate freeze is going to terminate; and would you care to comment on the energy board's observation in its September 29 ruling that for the millions of customers of Ontario Hydro One, when that rate freeze ends and when the market opens, both events anticipated in the next few months, those Ontario electricity customers ought to expect, minimally, a 13% increase in their electricity bill?

Hon Mr Wilson: I'm certainly aware of the Ontario Energy Board's comments. It's something that we're reviewing as a government. To date, though, the only pressures on electricity prices in the province have come from municipalities, some of which have tried to take windfall profits out of their utilities and spend that money on municipal purposes other than their local electricity system. I remind people again that this is a monopoly business, it's a local distribution business, and municipalities should not be stealing money from the electricity sector to spend on some other municipal project or something else. So Bill 100 has been introduced in this House to protect consumers.

The other pressure we have, of course, is the commitment that the Premier reiterated here today for Ontario to be the best environmental performer in this country. We are already leaders. We are going to continue to be leaders in that area, and that's going to cost money.

CRIME PREVENTION

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I know our government has always been committed to maintaining a safe environment for all Ontarians. Part of this commitment includes cracking down on the use of illegal drugs. As Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, you came up with the idea that would see people from all disciplines working together to make our communities safer. Could you share with us how you've approached this task and what role you've played?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I thank the member for London-Fanshawe for the question and for his interest. In our party's Blueprint document, we promised to crack down on establishments where it can be shown that drugs are habitually being used or sold, and the Harris government keeps its promises.

In March, the Solicitor General and I sponsored an interdisciplinary enforcement summit where we looked at ways to clean up problem establishments. There were over 100 participants from police and fire services, health and licensing officials, and the Alcohol and Gaming Commission, where we discussed ways of working together to crack down on illegal activities. I asked participants to finalize their recommendations so that all levels of government could develop a strategy to deal with illegal incidents. I am pleased to say that I will be releasing the final recommendations of the working group tomorrow morning.

Mr Mazzilli: On behalf of my constituents in London-Fanshawe, Minister, thank you. I look forward to seeing the report tomorrow.

You've always been a leader in the fight against crime. From your days in the opposition you showed leadership as a justice critic, and then as a Solicitor General. Now that you've changed portfolios, I'm pleased to see that you're continuing that fight against crime from a different angle. Minister, could you give us a preview of what you will be releasing tomorrow?

Hon Mr Runciman: I don't want to scoop myself, but I can assure you it will strongly address public concerns about drug dealing, prostitution, money laundering, and other illegal activities in clubs and bars in Ontario. These are tough, innovative recommendations that the Solicitor General and I are very supportive of and hope to see move forward as soon as possible.

The vast majority of liquor licence holders in Ontario operate responsibly, and the bad actors should be put out of business and kept out of business.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): My question is for the Minister of Health regarding her ongoing discrimination against northern cancer patients. On May 8 you promised this House that you would do a review of this inequity between northern and southern cancer patients. We know that this inequity exists; in fact, your Minister of Finance publicly admitted that in early May.

On September 13, after waiting four months to get this report released, I finally filed a freedom of information request, because I believe the work is done and I believe the document clearly shows the discrimination exists. I just received a letter from you that says you won't be able to reply to my request until after November 14 because you need to complete consultations associated with this request. Minister, this is nonsense. This is complete stalling on a really serious issue. You are showing your contempt for northern cancer patients by deliberately delaying a positive response.

Minister, where is this report and when are you going to end the discrimination against northern cancer patients?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): We are doing a comprehensive review of the travel program and we will be in a position to bring forward some recommendations at a later date.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): You've finished the review and you know it.

Ms Martel: Minister, the question was-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member take her seat. The member for Beaches-East York can't continue to do that. I've got to name her and ask Frances Lankin to leave as well. Stop the clock.

Ms Lankin was escorted from the chamber.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I will say this. My colleagues in the other provinces are amazed at the number of people we throw out. If we look at the record, we throw more people out in Ontario than any other province across this country. In fact, when I told some of my colleagues about the people I've thrown out, some of them have been in a lot longer than me and haven't thrown anybody out.

Let me say this. If we want to hold the record and we want to continue to throw people out, that's fine by me, because I'm going to continue to maintain order. If people are going to continue to shout and fly in the face of the Speaker and want to challenge my determination, then they can go ahead. But the Sergeant at Arms and myself will be up removing people every day if that's what it takes.

The Minister of Health.

Hon Mrs Witmer: The travel grant that is referred as the northern health travel grant is only available for people in northern Ontario. I just remind the House that there is no travel grant available for people in southern Ontario, even though some of those individuals may travel similar distances. I would also remind the House that the Cancer Care Ontario referral program applies equally to all Ontarians.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Come clean and be honest about it.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member accused the minister of lying on top of lies. That's out of order.

The Speaker: I didn't hear it. I was distracted a little bit.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Yes. Stop the clock, if we could. If the member did say it, he can choose to withdraw it. I'm sure we're all honourable members in here. If he did say it, I'm sure he will withdraw it.

Mr Kormos: Withdrawn, Speaker.

The Speaker: Let me say this. All members are honourable. I don't sit and listen to people yelling across when the answers are being given. I think we're all honourable members. But if need be, then I will listen a lot more carefully and people will get thrown out for things like that. There's no need to do that. I thank the chief government whip. When I'm standing up here, we don't need comments yelled as well. It's a difficult day, but we are going to maintain order here. If anybody wants to challenge my determination, they can go right ahead. But we are going to maintain order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Niagara Centre is named. I ask Mr Kormos to leave as well. Stop the clock.

Mr Kormos was escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker: Quite frankly, the idea of preventing one of the other parties from getting one question is extremely childish, to be going back and forth so that we get people thrown out so you don't get one more question. That is extremely childish in my estimation. If you want to do it-and I apologize to the Liberal Party, I have been slow in stopping the clock. In that case, I appreciate their letting me know. We will get to that question. I'll stop the clock, because we are going to get down to that question.

Hon Mrs Witmer: There is no discrimination in the Cancer Care Ontario referral program. It is available to all Ontarians whether they live in the north, the south, the east or the west. I would also just remind members that cancer patients in the north, when they do travel, do receive free accommodation in lodges that are operated by the regional cancer centres.

Ms Martel: My question was: Where is the report and when are you going to end this discrimination? Your government pays 100% of the food, travel and accommodation costs for southern Ontario cancer patients who have to travel far from home for cancer care. Yet every day across northern Ontario, northerners travel far from home to go to Thunder Bay or Sudbury or to Toronto and Ottawa, and your government only pays a fraction of the travel costs when they have to do that.

This inequity has gone on for 18 long months now and it's going to go on for at least a year longer because of the long waiting lists in southern Ontario. There's nothing fair, nothing just, nothing right about your two-tiered system to pay cancer patients in this province. When, for goodness' sake, are you going to end the discrimination against northern cancer patients?

Hon Mrs Witmer: There is no discrimination. The cancer care referral program for breast and prostate cancer, that is available to anyone, no matter where they live-

Interjections.

The Speaker: The minister take her seat. Stop the clock. The member for Nickel Belt is named, Shelley Martel. I will ask her to leave as well.

Ms Martel was escorted from the chamber.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Do you know how many miles northerners have to travel?

The Speaker: The member for Sault Ste Marie, I name him as well and ask him to leave as well.

Mr Martin: I don't get a warning?

The Speaker: Order. I will remind the member that if I ask the Sergeant at Arms to remove him, he will be out for the entire session, and I will do that if need be.

Mr Martin was escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker: I believe the Minister of Health has about 10 or 15 seconds, but I might be wrong about that.

New question.

WATER EXTRACTION

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): My question is for the Premier. Last May, I spoke about the frustration of municipalities in Ontario with the fact that permits to take water are being issued without notification. When I called the Ministry of the Environment, they told me that they couldn't tell me how many active permits were in my riding because they no longer had the staff to track these statistics. On the first day of hearings into the tragedy at Walkerton, Dr Kenneth Howard referred to this lack of control. He said that it's like writing a cheque on your bank account when you don't know how much money is coming in.

It is critical that we process these permits so that we can begin to catalogue the use of groundwater in the communities and watersheds of Ontario. Not all permits are posted on the EBR, such as those for less than a year or renewals. Also, some municipalities and conservation authorities don't have access to the Internet.

Yesterday, when Dalton McGuinty asked you about your groundwater strategy, you said you were open to suggestions. My private member's bill, Bill 121, will require a director to notify municipalities and conservation authorities prior to issuing a permit to take water. It's a good first step. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario supports Bill 121, along with many conservation authorities. I ask you today, will you support Bill 121?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Let me say to the member from Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington that I appreciate very much the question and I appreciate the information she has put forward. She is quite right, we do take positive suggestions very seriously on this side of the House; the minister does, I do, the cabinet does and the caucus does.

While tomorrow is private member's day and I don't believe I personally will be here, I can tell you we've had a substantial amount of discussion about your bill and about 50 other initiatives of a similar nature and ways that we can improve the whole area of understanding of groundwater, both from a quality and a volume point of view. I think it was the sense that your bill had some things in it that were quite constructive and positive. We don't think it goes nearly far enough, I would add, and I think there are a number of other areas where we need to go significantly further.

But I applaud the effort and look forward to the debate and perhaps a strengthening and advancing on your bill that may take place in that debate. I'm sure it will contribute to an overall better groundwater strategy.

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature to that.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): There's too much noise and commotion.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: I want to respond to that, if I can: the clock of life goes on and nobody can stop it.

The Chair recognizes the member for Rainy River.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I have a petition. It concerns the northern health travel grant. It says:

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

This has been signed by hundreds of residents from my constituency and I affix my signature to it as well.

The Deputy Speaker: Further petitions?

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): This government needs to understand that we are not going to give up our battle to get fairness for the northern health travel grant. Petitions keep coming in.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hundreds more have come in today. I'm very proud to add my name to this petition.

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has introduced Bill 112,

An Act to amend the McMichael Canadian Art Collection Act;

"Whereas the McMichael Canadian Art Collection has grown and evolved into one of Canada's best-loved and most important art gallery collections of Canadian art;

"Whereas the passage of Bill 112 would constitute a breach of trust made with hundreds of other donors to the McMichael Canadian Art Collection; vest too much power in the hands of the founders, who have been more than compensated for their generosity; diminish the authority and responsibility of the board of trustees; limit the focus of the art collection and hamper the gallery to raise private funds, thereby increasing its dependency on the taxpayers; and significantly reduce its capacity and strength as an educational resource;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to withdraw Bill 112."

I fully support this petition.

PENETANGUISHENE MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): To the Parliament of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned inmate patients detained in the maximum security prison at the Oak Ridges division of the Penetang Mental Health Centre in Penetanguishene, Ontario (Oak Ridges), hereby call upon members of the Legislative Assembly to inquire into the fairness of a decision made by the Minister of Health to deny us the funding we requested for the provision of cable television in our cell rooms, which the inmates in other prisons have been receiving for many years."

It's very long, and it goes on to discuss the reasons. I'd like to present this to the Legislature.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Ontario Legislature, and it's part of the 53,000-signature petition we have, northerners demanding that the Harris government eliminate health care apartheid.

"Whereas the northern health travel grant offers a reimbursement of partial travel costs at a rate of 30.4 cents per kilometre one way for northerners forced to travel for cancer care, while travel policy for southerners who travel for cancer care features full reimbursement costs for travel, meals and accommodation;

"Whereas a cancer tumour knows no health travel policy or geographic location;

"Whereas a recently released Oracle research poll confirms that 92% of Ontarians support equal health travel funding;

"Whereas northern Ontario residents pay the same amount of taxes and are entitled to the same access to health care and all government services and inherent civil rights as residents living elsewhere in the province; and

"Whereas we support the efforts of the newly formed OSECC (Ontarians Seeking Equal Cancer Care), founded by Gerry Lougheed Jr, former chair of Cancer Care Ontario, Northeast Region, to correct this injustice against northerners travelling for cancer treatment;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand the Mike Harris government move immediately to fund full travel expenses for northern Ontario cancer patients and eliminate the health care apartheid which exists presently in the province of Ontario."

I affix my signature to this petition.

LORD'S PRAYER

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

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

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

"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."

HIGHWAY SIGNS

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has been spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars on a provincial sign campaign accompanying highway construction sites which reads, `Your Ontario tax dollars at work,' signed by the Premier;

"Whereas these signs serve no particular purpose except to promote the image of the Premier at taxpayers' expense;

"Whereas this kind of public relations exercise is a completely inappropriate waste of taxpayers' dollars and certainly is not a wise use of our tax dollars at work;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that the Ministry of Transportation immediately remove all of these partisan highway signs from provincial highway construction sites across the province of Ontario;

"Furthermore, we petition the Ontario Legislature to pass Bill 44,

An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act to prohibit partisan highway signs," which was introduced by Michael Gravelle, the member for Superior North, "which, if passed, would prevent the Ministry of Transportation from issuing to the crown any permit to display a sign which contains the name or image of a member of the provincial cabinet or a member of the Legislative Assembly or a partisan message."

This private member's bill was introduced and passed first reading in the Ontario Legislature on December 21, 1999. I agree with this petition and I've signed it as well.

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has introduced Bill 112,

An Act to amend the McMichael Canadian Art Collection Act;

"Whereas the McMichael Canadian Art Collection has grown and evolved into one of Canada's best-loved and most important art gallery collections of 20th-century Canadian art;

"Whereas the passage of Bill 112 would constitute a breach of trust made with hundreds of other donors to the McMichael Canadian Art Collection; vest too much power in the hands of the founders, who have been more than compensated for their generosity; diminish the authority and responsibility of the board of trustees; limit the focus of the art collection and hamper the gallery to raise private funds, thereby increasing its dependency on the taxpayers; and significantly reduce its capacity and strength as an educational resource;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to withdraw Bill 112."

I support this fully and I'll be signing it.

LORD'S PRAYER

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I also have a petition with respect to maintaining prayer in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It's a petition almost identical to the one read by the member from Lambton-Kent-Middlesex.

"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."

Speaker, I am on record previously as supporting these petitions and hereby affix my signature to this one.

WATER EXTRACTION

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

"Whereas we strenuously object to permits to take water being issued by the Ministry of the Environment without adequate assessment of the consequences and without adequate consultation with the public and those people and groups who have expertise and interest;

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

"We request a moratorium on the issuing of permits to take water for non-farm, commercial and industrial use and the rescinding of all existing commercial water-taking permits that are for bulk or bottled water export, outside of Ontario, until a comprehensive evaluation of our water needs is completed. An independent non-partisan body should undertake this evaluation."

I proudly sign my name to this petition.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): This petition is to the Ontario Legislature, and Tom Wells would be very happy about this:

"Northerners demand Harris government eliminate health care apartheid:

"Whereas the northern health travel grant offers a reimbursement of partial travel costs at a rate of 30.4 cents per kilometre one way for northerners forced to travel for cancer care while travel policy for southerners who travel for cancer care features full reimbursement costs for travel, meals and accommodation;

"Whereas a cancer tumour knows no health travel policy or geographic location;

"Whereas a recently released Oracle research poll confirms that 92% of Ontarians support equal health travel funding;

"Whereas northern Ontario residents pay the same amount of taxes and are entitled to the same access to health care and all government services and inherent civil rights as residents living elsewhere in the province;

"Whereas we support the efforts of the newly formed OSECC, founded by Gerry Lougheed Jr, former chair of Cancer Care Ontario, Northeast Region, to correct this injustice against northerners travelling for cancer treatment;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand the Mike Harris government move immediately to fund full travel expenses for northern Ontario cancer patients and eliminate the health care apartheid which exists presently in the province of Ontario."

I am in full agreement with this petition and I affix my signature to it.

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

Hon Frank Klees (Minister without Portfolio): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to revert to motions.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Klees has asked for unanimous consent to revert to motions. Is it the pleasure of the House? It is agreed.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: I didn't hear dissent until after I made the announcement.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: I'll take a moment.

I will remind members that it's not only important that we do the right thing at the right time, but the reason it's important to me-I really don't care how many times a person shouts no until I ask the question. When I ask the question and I don't hear, then I make an announcement. I want to say that.

That being said, in this House you require unanimous consent. There is obviously not unanimous consent. Therefore, my ruling is that we did not get unanimous consent for the motion that you are asking for.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TOUGHEST ENVIRONMENTAL PENALTIES ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SANCTIONNANT PAR LES PEINES LES PLUS SÉVÈRES DES INFRACTIONS DE NATURE ENVIRONNEMENTALE

Mr Newman moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 124,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Pesticides Act in respect of penalties / Projet de loi 124, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection de l'environnement, la

Loi sur les ressources en eau de l'Ontario et la

Loi sur les pesticides en ce qui concerne des peines ayant trait à l'environnement.

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): At the outset, I'd like to indicate I'll be sharing my time with the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant.

I'm pleased to have this opportunity to join with my colleagues in the Legislature to debate the Toughest Environmental Penalties Act, 2000. This is the first bill I have put forward as Minister of the Environment and it's a piece of legislation that I'm very proud of. This legislation has great potential to add to the safeguards to protect Ontario's air, water and land.

I know everyone in the House shares a belief in the importance of environmental protection and in the importance of solid legislation to protect it. This is a belief of the Mike Harris government. We are firmly committed to safeguarding our environment and ensuring that Ontario's communities are healthy, safe and prosperous. We are just as firmly committed to legislation that helps us achieve these ends. We believe that penalties are essential to any viable framework for protecting the environment. This is why in the Blueprint, and again in the October throne speech, we promised to introduce legislation that would ensure the toughest penalties in Canada for major pollution offences.

Just eight days ago, I had the privilege of delivering another initiative toward meeting this commitment. On October 10, I introduced in this Legislature for first reading the Toughest Environmental Penalties Act, 2000. This government has set ambitious environmental goals and is taking unprecedented action to achieve them.

As Minister of the Environment, I am proud of what has been done and what we are continuing to do to meet our environmental commitments. Step by step we are putting in place the legislation and resources we need to ensure that our environmental laws are enforced and to provide penalties that fit the offences against our environment.

We have, in essence, a four-step action program:

First, 1998's Bill 82 strengthened the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Pesticides Act. It also laid the groundwork for the ministry to impose administrative monetary penalties when a contravention of any of these acts has been detected.

Second, there was the creation last month of an environmental SWAT team to crack down on deliberate and repeat polluters and bring them into compliance with the law.

Third, the bill now before the Legislature provides strong and appropriate penalties for offenders.

Fourth, there is an administrative monetary penalties, or AMPs, regulation which I expect to release for consultation before long.

But make no mistake, the vast majority of people in this province respect the law and care about their environment, and that also goes for our companies, services and industries. They have no inclination to break the law and to put their neighbours, their communities and their environment at risk. But we must be vigilant to ensure the integrity of our environmental protection system, and that integrity depends on a credible system of punishment and deterrence for offences against the environment.

I assure the honourable members that our new legislation is a major environmental milestone for Ontario. If passed, this bill would give Ontario the toughest fines and the longest jail terms in the nation for major environmental offences. If passed, the proposed bill would increase the maximum fine for a first conviction of a major offence for a corporation from $1 million to $6 million per day, and for a subsequent conviction from $2 million to $10 million per day.

It would increase the maximum fine for a first conviction of a major offence for an individual from the current $100,000 per day to $4 million per day, and for subsequent convictions from the current amount of $200,000 to $6 million per day. It would increase the maximum jail terms for a person convicted of a major offence from two years to five years and it would increase the cap on administrative penalties from $5,000 to $10,000 per day.

I want to make it very clear that if this bill is passed, officers and directors of companies convicted of an offence under our laws would be subject to the toughest fines and jail terms in Canada for major environmental offences. These are very substantial increases. In one case, that of an individual convicted of a major offence against the environment, the penalty goes from $100,000 to $4 million per day. That's a 40-fold increase.

These proposed penalties that I have outlined would apply to offences under the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Pesticides Act.

In addition, the penalty structure in the Ontario Water Resources Act would be amended to ensure that these tough new penalties apply to the most serious offences under the new drinking water protection regulation, those being failure to report samples that exceed standards in this province and failure to ensure minimum levels of water treatment.

It's obvious that the vast majority of individuals and companies in this province care about the environment and comply with the rules. They care first for the sake of the environment and of health. They realize that their long-term well-being and that of their children and that of generations to follow depend on well-protected air, water and land.

The people in this province also realize that a clean environment is a cornerstone of economic growth. They understand the concept of sustainability. Often this belief in sustainability has been made to them because improved environmental performance has reduced bottom lines in their businesses, or they have seen what has just happened in other jurisdictions where environmental degradation has gone hand in hand with economic stagnation.

For these people-and again, they are the vast majority-the penalties we are proposing are great news. They will help level the playing field by taking away any incentive to pollute. It's difficult to see where that incentive is. It's difficult to see how anyone could put short-sighted economic interests above the interests of the environment and above the interests of a healthy, prosperous community.

But let's face it, there are those people. They are the people who wilfully, stupidly and arrogantly turn a blind eye to the law and to the health and well-being of their communities. Of course, their behaviour is the very antithesis of good community spirit. It is true that sometimes they have made short-term economic gains by cutting environmental corners, but the bill we are debating today, Bill 124, is bad news for them. Polluters will not prosper, and we are sending a clear message: a message of deterrence. If you are caught committing an environmental offence, you will face a much greater fine, should this bill be passed.

Let me provide some context to the bill we are debating today. Back in 1998, when we introduced Bill 82, the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act, most of the regulations and other legislative tools that were available to ensure compliance and enforcement were more than two decades old. Where changes had been made, they were done piecemeal or they were so restrictive on staff that they were unworkable and therefore hardly ever used. Offenders were able to continue to operate, knowing the ministry's hands were tied, to some extent, tied by its own laws.

Compounding the problem, we had inconsistency in the way new provisions had been added. The result was that we worked with different powers and penalties under different acts. This caused confusion for our officers in applying environmental laws, and it also created confusion for the regulated community in understanding its responsibilities and its rights. We needed rules and penalties that were stronger and clearer for the regulators, for the people they regulate and for the public at large.

The ministry's legislation was also lagging behind other Canadian jurisdictions in making available the use of modern compliance tools such as administrative monetary penalties. Clearly, we needed reforms to bring our province in line with other provinces and to make our laws better able to perform their intended purpose: deterring and punishing polluters, as well as protecting our environment.

Bill 82 laid the foundation for our action program. It strengthened the compliance and enforcement provisions of the legislation administered by the Ministry of the Environment. We increased the ministry's capabilities to deter and punish those who do not obey the law. We gave ministry staff more modern investigative aids and techniques. We enabled ministry staff to go after not just those who were actually involved in the commission of waste offences but also those who were at work behind the scenes, such as the brokers who make arrangements for illegal dumping and tell transporters where to take their waste.

We also gave the courts a tougher penalties regime in which to punish and deter polluters.

And now we are making justice even tougher to avoid. We are taking square aim at the small group of companies and individuals who would sacrifice the environment for their own profit. We must do everything in our power to ensure a clean and health environment for today and for generations to come.

This will be a new group of environmental officers, with an innovative approach to identifying new and emerging problems, a group with a mandate to act quickly and effectively. The SWAT team will focus on cracking down on companies or individuals who deliberately or repeatedly break the law and jeopardize our health and our environment. The team will be very mobile. The ministry will be able to quickly deploy SWAT to address immediate threats to the environment. The SWAT field units will be equipped with state-of-the-art communications technology to draw on broader resources without leaving the field, and that's very important.

Ministry district staff will continue to conduct inspections and respond to pollution reports. The SWAT team will be able to focus on targeted sources, sectors or areas of concern, and it will be able to conduct inspections and follow up on them.

We realize the vast majority of companies and individuals are very conscientious in meeting environmental requirements. They should be encouraged by the creation of the SWAT team, because it will provide a level playing field. Environmental offenders will no longer benefit from their actions at the expense of law-abiding companies and citizens.

We intend to have parts of the environmental SWAT team operational in late fall. I expect when they are operational that prosecutions, especially for the most serious offences, will increase. Strong enforcement is necessary to provide a deterrent effect to motivate compliance. It provides fairness in the marketplace to ensure non-compliant facilities do not gain an unfair competitive advantage.

The ministry's commitment was reflected in the increase in total numbers of charges laid, convictions and fines issued in 1999. The number of charges laid in 1999 was 51% higher than those laid in 1998. Convictions rose by 48% during that same time period. All told, there has been a 200% increase in the number of orders issued for the period between 1996 and 1999 to this year. During the same period, the number of tickets issued has increased even more-by 225%.

Job number one for the Ministry of the Environment is the environment. In building the best possible system for doing this job, we are aiming our compliance and enforcement activities where they can do the best for the environment: at those activities which present the biggest threat to our health and to our environment. In 1995 we introduced a priorities exercise, and I'd like to add that this process was already in place. The NDP government also recognized the need to get the best use out of their resources. How they went about getting there, at best, was another issue, but at least we agree that there needed to be priorities set.

I'm returning to SWAT, which itself will have a set of priorities. The team will help the Ministry of the Environment achieve its mandate by effectively and visibly deterring deliberate and repeat polluters from crimes against the environment.

This brings us to the matter that we are discussing, the Toughest Environmental Penalties Act, 2000. We believe that where there's a crime there must also be punishment, and there is no doubt that environmental offences are serious crimes that deserve commensurate punishment. The Toughest Environmental Penalties Act, 2000 puts teeth in the mouth of Bill 82. It will result in the availability of the highest fines in Canada and jail terms higher than most other jurisdictions for major environmental offences. Jail terms will be on a par with those of the Yukon, which currently has the longest jail terms in the country for pollution offences.

It is, of course, up to the courts to determine the appropriate punishment, be it a fine or a prison sentence for any offence. The courts must consider a number of factors when deciding the appropriate fine and/or jail term in environmental cases. These factors include the maximum penalty prescribed in legislation, the nature of the environment affected and the extent of the damage.

It is up to the government to set the statutory maximums for a given offence, and we are doing just that with this bill. By increasing the maximum fines and jail terms for major environmental offences, we send a clear message that the government considers that these offences are serious. High statutory maximums will give the courts additional flexibility in deciding how much an environmental polluter should be penalized. I'm sure the honourable members from all parties will agree that this government, that all of us want serious pollution offences to be met with serious penalties.

Lawbreaking would be even less enticing because of the stiffer fines that we now propose. Because of their ability to play the system, some polluters have seen fines as just another cost of doing business. We propose to make fines play their proper role as both punishment and as a deterrent.

The Aquatech conviction just a few months ago sent a strong message to potential polluters, even under the old rules. Fines totalling more than $1.135 million were handed down in the case involving the discharge of petroleum liquid hydrocarbons into the Keating Channel in Lake Ontario between September 1996 and March 1997. Two of the senior people involved were sentenced to six months in jail and a third to four months. This was in addition to significant personal fines.

I predict that even stronger messages will be sent to potential offenders when all the elements of our action plan are in effect. Pollution simply doesn't pay. It can be very damaging to the polluter and in direct proportion to the damage to the environment.

We are also sending a message out to the great majority of Ontarians who do obey environmental laws that we are taking strong and appropriate action to ensure that the environment is protected and we are taking strong and appropriate action to provide the best possible environment today and for generations to come.

As I said earlier, I intend to release an administrative monetary penalties, or AMPs, regulation in the next month or so. Administrative penalties are already in place in other Canadian jurisdictions. The new regulation would help spell out how this power is to be used. We are considering a maximum administrative monetary penalty of $10,000 for every day that a contravention occurs.

I want to stress that these penalties are not fines. They would cover minor contraventions that normally wouldn't go to prosecution. I also want to stress that administrative monetary penalties are not a replacement for prosecution. They are a much-needed tool to help us strengthen compliance with Ontario's environmental laws. Ensuring compliance is, after all, the main way we protect Ontario's environment.

There is one point I'd like to make here that I believe is very important. According to one media report, the member for Beaches-East York has said that we are repealing the ability to fine officers and directors of polluting companies. This is not accurate. The ability to fine officers and directors remains unchanged. In fact, we are getting tougher on them. So the honourable member had it all wrong. I want to repeat again for everyone that we are getting tougher because the bill would also require us to go the tougher prosecutorial route with the officers and directors of polluting companies.

And, as I stated, earlier, the bill that we are debating today would apply the tougher fines and jail sentences to these officers and directors.

One way these penalties can help us protect the environment is by resolving many minor contraventions that normally wouldn't be resolved. We have other mechanisms for dealing with major offences, but it will help the environment and help level the playing field for honest operators if we can get companies to remedy situations that may have continued in the past. We would also be able to deal with more non-compliance situations than we can at present.

One further way to deal with non-compliance situations would be a pollution hotline, where we can get input from the public, the very people whose health and well-being are most affected by environmental offences. We are looking at options for creating a hotline.

The toughest penalties we are proposing build on the strong record of environmental accomplishment that we have in this province. This summer we announced Operation Clean Water, which focuses on a province-wide effort to improve water quality and delivery in the province. The centrepiece of Operation Clean Water is the drinking water protection regulation. By requiring immediate notification to appropriate authorities and full public access to water quality information, the regulation ensures that the process for protecting Ontario's water supplies will be crystal clear, as the water itself. We all kn