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

September 28, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Sept-28 (PDF)

L081 - Thu 28 Sep 2000 / Jeu 28 sep 2000

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR L'EAU POTABLE SAINE

INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ADOPTION INTERNATIONALE

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

KYLE PETTEY

WASTE MANAGEMENT

LABOUR DISPUTE

RED CROSS

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

LIBERAL PARTY

BREAST CANCER

CARE FOR KIDS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

YOUNG OFFENDERS

ORAL QUESTIONS

SCHOOL TEACHERS

INTENSIVE FARMING PRACTICES

SAFE DRINKING WATER LEGISLATION

WASTE MANAGEMENT

LONG-TERM CARE

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

GTA TRANSPORTATION

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION FUNDING

EMERGENCY SERVICES

PARTICULATE EMISSIONS

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS AND TRADES

PETITIONS

INTERNATIONAL ADOPTIONS

PROTECTION OF MINORS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

FARMFARE PROGRAM

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

FRAIS DE TRANSPORT AUX FINS MÉDICALES

AGRICULTURAL LAND

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

CHILD POVERTY

EDUCATION REFORM

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA COLLECTION MCMICHAEL D'ART CANADIEN

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR L'EAU POTABLE SAINE

Ms Churley moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 96,

An Act to restore public confidence in the quality of drinking water in Ontario / Projet de loi 96, Loi visant à rétablir la confiance publique dans la qualité de l'eau potable en Ontario.

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

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): This is perhaps the most important bill, or one of the most important bills, that we will be debating in this Legislature this session.

After what happened in Walkerton and the deaths of up to six people and the illness of up to 2,000, it's becoming increasingly obvious that this province needs a comprehensive Safe Drinking Water Act. This is something I had been working on before the outbreak in Walkerton, and obviously it is all the more timely now.

It goes without saying that the people of Ontario have the right to clean and safe drinking water. Clean, safe drinking water is a basic human entitlement and is essential for the protection of public health.

To ensure that the people of Ontario have safe drinking water, drinking water standards should be reviewed and revised frequently, information about drinking water quality should be freely available, drinking water issues should be dealt with by the provincial and municipal levels of government working in partnership and the process for making decisions about drinking water issues should be transparent and accountable.

In the few minutes I have, I want to run through the most important components of this bill before us today, for the public who may be watching this but as well for members who may not have had the opportunity, shall I kindly say, to actually read the bill.

Water testing: water shall be tested by a water testing lab that is accredited. Results of all tests must be reported to the Ministry of the Environment. There must be immediate notification of water users, the medical officer of health and the MOE where a test reveals that a contaminant or substance exceeds the maximum permitted level, a test is delayed or cannot be performed for any reason or equipment for testing or purifying water is malfunctioning. Those are some aspects of that.

Water testing labs: only water testing labs that are accredited by the ministry can test water. Water suppliers must advise the MOE of the name of the lab that is conducting water tests and when a different lab is used, and there are strict requirements for reporting water test results to the MOE and the medical officer of health.

Community right-to-know provisions are a very important aspect: immediate notification of water users where a test reveals contamination or a substance that exceeds the prescribed standards, a required test is delayed or cannot be conducted or if water equipment malfunctions; open access to the public of water test results regularly; summaries of tests results provided to water users with their water bills; creation by the ministry of an electronic water quality registry that would be available to any person without charge and would include test results on a community-by-community basis, copies of all certificates of approval issued to public water suppliers, a list of all accredited water testing labs, details of any water advisory notices issued, information about convictions under the act and information about civil action judicial reviews under the act.

Water offences: the act makes it an offence for a public water supplier to supply water that exceeds the maximum permitted level for any contaminant or substance, that contravenes the prescribed standard. It makes it an offence to pollute the water, with fines up to $1 million for each day an offence occurs or continues.

Judicial remedies: the minister can apply for a restraining order to stop any individual from contravening the requirements under the act, regulations or a certificate of approval. A person who suffers damage under the act may bring an action for damages against any person who has contravened or failed to comply with the provisions of the act.

A water advisory council: when I asked the minister in the House whether he would support this bill, he referred to it as more red tape, but I want to say why this

part is so important. The purpose of the council is to conduct research on water issues and advise the minister of the results of that research. Research would include drinking water quality, prescribed standards, contaminants and substances and their effects or any other matters that affect drinking water quality.

This bill addresses the responsibility of the minister. The minister is required to conduct research on methods of purifying and conserving water and sources of surface and groundwater contamination. The minister shall annually table with the Legislature a state of safe drinking water report. The report contents include information on the work of the water council, a

summary of the information added to the water registry, a report on the review of drinking water regulations, a report on the operation of the safe drinking water fund, a

summary of measures taken by the government to address water quality issues and a statement of measure to be taken by the government to address water quantity issues.

The minister shall conduct an annual public review of the regulations made under the act in order to evaluate their adequacy in protecting human health.

Water regulations: Ontario drinking water objectives immediately become interim regulations. This is something that a number of environmental organizations-CELA, CIELAP and the Toronto Environmental Alliance, or TEA-have called for. Within one year of passage, the interim regulations shall be replaced by comprehensive new regulations, and the minister is required to conduct an annual public review of the regulations to evaluate their adequacy in protecting human health.

Finally, a very important component of this bill is a safe drinking water fund. It establishes a fund for the purposes of providing technical and financial assistance to public water suppliers to ensure they are able to meet their obligations under the act and regulations. This fund could be used to provide technical and financial assistance to maintain and improve drinking water quality, improve water delivery systems, provide employee training and establish programs to assess and protect source areas.

These are some of the key elements and highlights of the bill we have before us today. We know that the minister, when asked yesterday if he was willing to support this bill today, continued to give the answer that he has been giving frequently, which is that he has brought in regulations, the best regulations in the country. Well, I have to say to the minister that, as we all know, Dr Murray McQuigge has said openly and publicly that the minister's regulations don't cut it, that they don't do what is needed to protect the drinking water for the people of Ontario.

I would say to all members in the Legislature today that Dr Murray McQuigge should be listened to. He is the one who blew the whistle in Walkerton. Surely the government at this time, after Walkerton, would listen to one of the experts in the field who has warned the government that their regulations would not in fact prevent another Walkerton.

A number of key environmental groups-these are non-partisan environmental organizations-have publicly endorsed Bill 96. Indeed, CELA has sent a letter, in a non-partisan way, to all three leaders in this House calling on all members to be in the House to support this bill today so it can go to committee, so that we can have committee hearings and improve on this bill. I can say to you, Mr Speaker, that this is a fine guideline, a beginning of one of the most comprehensive and perhaps best clean drinking water acts we could have in North America.

We have taken some of the best of some of the most progressive safe drinking water legislation in the US. Indeed, through my very able assistant, Sean Morton, who is a lawyer and also has an M.A. in environmental studies, an expert in this area who put a lot of work into this bill, it is indeed a comprehensive bill and a made-in-Ontario bill that, if passed, will be a fine framework for us to go out to committee and, all together in this House, hear from experts outside and come up with the most comprehensive legislation in Ontario.

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I want to begin by stating the obvious: there is not an MPP in this House who is not concerned about the tragedy in Walkerton and what those people have been going through for the past several months. For these reasons, it is important that we are debating Bill 96 today.

However, Bill 96 really offers nothing new. In fact, the bill duplicates many efforts already underway to ensure safe water. In some areas, it doesn't go as far as the government has already gone. It does nothing to improve water safety that the province is not already doing. The force of law has already been given to these proposals through the drinking water protection regulation. Again, really nothing new or of value is added through this legislation. We have already given the force of law to everything Bill 96 proposes, and then some.

The Ontario government supports and is actively working to make the quality of drinking water in Ontario second to none. I want to explain to the House a number of steps the Minister of the Environment has taken to achieve this goal.

Restoring the public's confidence was taken by the Premier when he appointed Mr Justice O'Connor to conduct an independent public inquiry into the events at Walkerton and to advise the government on how to avoid this type of tragedy in the future. In addition to the O'Connor inquiry, there is also a coroner's investigation, an OPP investigation and a consultation on small waterworks, and we are currently reviewing the internal workings of the Ministry of the Environment.

The member for Toronto-Danforth proposes to create a water advisory council to do research on water issues and advise the minister. It raises the question: does Ms Churley presuppose the work of the Mr Justice O'Connor inquiry?

Another action was to launch Operation Clean Water, and we announced $240 million through the OSTAR program, the Ontario small town and rural initiative, for the purpose of helping municipalities bring their waterworks activities in line with our tough, new standards. Bill 96 proposes to create a safe drinking water fund to provide technical and financial assistance to public water supplies. Some $240 million in OSTAR funding has already done this; again, no new idea here.

As part of Operation Clean Water, we have already enacted our drinking water protection regulation. This adopted Ontario drinking water objectives as regulations, and mandatory reporting and notification requirements. But as part of Operation Clean Water, not only did we adopt the old drinking water objectives, but we have also enhanced them, we have added strict, new criteria and we have already given them the force of law. Bill 96 proposes mandatory reporting and notification requirements. This has already been done.

There are several more points.

Under the Ontario Water Resources Act, fines range from $20,000 to $2 million. I personally feel they should be higher than that. Bill 96 calls for maximum penalties of $1 million. I see this as a step backward.

The right to sue already exists. We know this from lawyers launching a class-action suit in Walkerton. Yet MPP Churley proposes in Bill 96 that we enact the right to sue.

As part of the Ontario drinking water protection regulation, the owner of a large waterworks must publish their test results quarterly, not yearly, and at no cost to the consumer. With respect to small waterworks, Minister Newman and I have launched consultations with respect to how these small waterworks will be affected by our tough, new standards. Now we see that Bill 96 calls for an annual report to the Legislature.

To conclude, in my view Bill 96 is old news with respect to water quality issues. Bill 96 has the right spirit, but what it proposes is really water under the bridge. Our government's actions to date-Operation Clean Water and its several parts, the new regulation, the OSTAR funding, continuing consultations and the findings of the O'Connor inquiry at its conclusion-will give Ontario the safest water in Canada.

Because of the intention of this bill and the fact that it mirrors much of what the government has already done, I will be voting for this bill. Again, Ontarians realize that with Mike Harris as Premier, a promise made is a promise kept.

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): Certainly Bill 96 is a comprehensive and reasoned response to a tragic example of mismanagement by this government. You heard from the last speaker, who continues to deny the reality of what the people of Ontario are facing. The people of Ontario have lost confidence in this government's ability to protect their drinking water. Wherever you go in the province, people agree with that. They don't believe this government understands or appreciates what has happened to water in this province.

For anyone on the other side to basically pick apart this proposal is, to me, a reflection of this government's lack of appreciation of what has happened. No action better demonstrates this government's lack of appreciation than when you see that one of their most significant responses is to hire the most expensive spin doctor in the country-I don't know what he's getting; $1,000 a day-to basically spin the government's position on this. We don't need spin doctors; we need doctors like Dr McQuigge. That's who the government should be hiring: more doctors like McQuigge who have the guts and the backbone to stand up and tell this government that its feeble attempts so far are not adequate.

Member Churley's bill is an attempt to basically do what you should be doing. Stop denying reality. People in this province are saying that it is a provincial responsibility to protect drinking water. Drinking water is not just something that happens in one isolated community or home or area. Drinking water is interconnected in the aquifers, in the recharge functions; it is something that is like a web of underground wells that are all interconnected. So you can't have it in the hands of one municipality which this government tries to download on. This is not a downloadable responsibility. It's your job to protect drinking water.

Here we have a member who presents an honest attempt to say, "Do the right thing." I hope the members opposite would not only vote as individuals in favour of it, but would vote to have it unanimously passed today, for Pete's sake, if possible.

At what point do the members on the other side start to listen to their constituents and stop listening to the spin doctors hired by Premier Harris? Talk to your constituents. Ask them if they believe that your government has a handle on the drinking water problem. I'm sure all of them will tell you that you don't.

So listen to member Churley's suggestions in Bill 96, which is an intelligent, comprehensive approach to a very, very complex and serious problem. It's a meaningful contribution. So let's not just patronize it and say, "Oh yes, all these things are wrong with it, but I'm still going to vote in favour of it." We should be, all members on both sides, pushing for unanimous consent to get this bill passed within 24 hours, if we really understood the gravity of what's happening in Ontario and to people's drinking water. Whether it's their own individual wells, or whether it's municipal water systems, there is, in essence, a state of chaos in something as fundamental as drinking water.

In some cases it's worse conditions than are in Third World countries. Walkerton still-how many months has it been? Four months, and they still can't drink the water. If that doesn't tell you that your government doesn't know what it's doing, what else would tell you that? At what point do you wake up and stop posturing politically? At what point do you say, "Let's listen to Dr McQuigge instead of the spin doctors?" At what point do you come to that realization?

I really wonder what it would take to make you understand that it isn't business as usual with water. We have an imperative here, a health imperative. It's not a political issue, it's a health issue. Every Ontario citizen, in small rural hamlets or in big cities, has a right, as a result of their paying of taxes, to have you as the government do your job and protect something as fundamental as drinking water.

This shouldn't even be debated. You're still debating it. Your minister still stands up in the House and says his feeble attempts are good enough, when everybody says the opposite. You're not doing enough. You are more interested, as I said, in propaganda and pretending that you're doing enough than in actually doing your job.

This is not about red tape. This is not about bureaucracy. This is about a fundamental mandate you have as government. You are the government, whether you believe it or not. Do your job and protect people's drinking water. This bill should be supported by everyone in this House, without question. I'd like to see anyone who would dare vote against it, for what reason.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Mr Speaker, I'd like to raise a process issue at this time. I'm asking for unanimous consent to do the two-minute reply and windup on behalf of Ms Churley at the end of this debate. She has been asked to attend a very important safe drinking water conference, and, just because of the scheduling, she may not be here for the two-minute wrap-up, so I'm asking for unanimous consent that I can do that.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Hampton has asked for unanimous consent to do the two-minute windup. Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Hampton: I'm asking all members to support this legislation today. I am asking all the members to recognize the current situation in this province, where there are a number of communities in this province that are now directed to boil their water, where there are a number of communities in this province that have been told, at long last, by either medical officers of health or by provincial authorities or by independent testing agencies that they have serious water quality problems.

We know that Walkerton continues to be in a crisis, but we also know that there are literally over 100 communities in this province that now have significant problems with their drinking water and that cannot, with any degree of certainty, assure their citizens of the ongoing safety of their drinking water. So I am asking all members to recognize that we have a province-wide problem here. I am asking all members to recognize that there are a number of features in this bill which will go a very significant distance in terms of aiding not only the citizens of Ontario but aiding the current government in terms of dealing with this very serious problem.

Briefly, what is in the bill that is so important is to set in legislation so that it is very clear for everyone-for municipalities, for municipal officials, for provincial officials, for private organizations-to set very clearly in legislation that water testing can only be conducted by accredited labs, to put in place strict notification requirements.

Two of the problems in Walkerton that we already know about were that there was a switch from one lab to another, which caused some inconsistency, and the second problem that we already know about is that, because there were no strict notification requirements, people who should have known didn't know. The medical officer of health wasn't notified. Can you imagine that? The officer in the public health system who is supposed to have some control, who can issue directives about boiled water, wasn't notified. This needs to be in legislation.

Having it in a regulation somewhere is not sufficient. We have seen over the last five years how easily this government will pass and then get rid of regulations. We have seen how they will often do away with regulations without any public consultation whatsoever, without any reference to those groups or organizations or the public health of citizens who might be affected. This needs to be in legislation.

Strong community right-to-know provisions: we already know that one of the problems of Walkerton was that there were a series of incidents where people were going to the hospital with flu-like symptoms but the community at large had no strong community right-to-know provisions that they could rely upon. People who should have known, who deserved to know, were kept in the dark. Again, this can't be covered by some obscure regulation somewhere. This needs to be in legislation so that at all levels all levels of government and private organizations which might from time to time be involved with this would clearly know what the law is.

Again, other provisions: judicial review of actions of the Minister of the Environment with respect to clean water and safeguarding drinking water. We need to have a forum whereby citizens or a medical officer of health, if he believes that wrong decisions have been made or that enforcement is not proceeding as it should-we need to have another level of accountability here.

Establish a water advisory council. Let us recognize that Ontario is a very diverse province, that what may not be a problem in Toronto could be a problem in Walkerton, or in areas that are rapidly developing in terms of suburbanization or industrialization or intensive farm operations. We need an ongoing water advisory council which requires the minister to undertake research on water issues.

With all of the warnings that were issued pre-Walkerton, with all of the concerns that have been raised by the Environmental Commissioner, by the auditor, all of the concerns that were being raised by municipalities concerned about intensive farming, if there had been a water advisory council that was looking at these issues and if there had been a requirement by the ministry to undertake research, I think we would agree we'd be in a much better position today.

Annual state of safe drinking water report: I can only say to members that we know when the Environmental Commissioner releases the annual report, it holds government and it holds outside authorities accountable. When the Provincial Auditor issues a report, we know that it holds not only government but outside bodies accountable. That is why we need an annual safe drinking water report.

And finally, a safe drinking water act fund: all the members here know that a private member's bill cannot require the government to expend money. A private member's bill cannot require the government to set aside a fund. But what this bill does is puts in place all of the things, all of the kinds of measures which would then allow government and give government a strong basis upon which to set up such a drinking water act fund.

Why is such a fund necessary? I invite all members of the Legislature to go out there and talk to small municipalities across this province, whether in rural Ontario or northern Ontario or suburban Ontario, and you will find out that virtually every one of them recognizes that they have to do something in terms of either assuring proper operation, better operation of their sewage treatment plant or an upgrading of their water treatment plant, yet they don't have the money. They could tax local residents to the nth degree.

They could sell off their water treatment plant or their sewage treatment plant to a private operator, but in any case, the cost of doing this will be beyond, and is beyond, the capacity of local ratepayers and beyond the capacity of local consumers to finance this kind of operation. There must be a provincial safe drinking water fund.

To say that SuperBuild will do it, I'm sorry, members should know that SuperBuild doesn't provide as much capital funding as was provided before. SuperBuild is open to things like hockey arenas or community centres or streets and roads, a number of projects which in effect hive down, severely decimate the amount of money that is available for drinking water protection. SuperBuild is not the answer. SuperBuild has far too wide a scope and isn't a dedicated fund.

If we recognize the seriousness of the problem, we will recognize the need for a drinking water fund. This bill doesn't provide that, but it puts in place all of the kinds of measures which would then make it much easier for a government and much more coherent for a government to put in place that kind of safe drinking water fund.

Members of the government have said, "Well, we have the regulations put in place by the Ministry of the Environment." I want all members of the government to listen very carefully to what Dr McQuigge said. Remember, Dr McQuigge was the person who blew the whistle on this; otherwise we may have had more people dying and hundreds more people sick. He said that there's a real problem in that the regulations put in place by the government don't tell municipalities or anyone else what must be done once a problem is identified.

Let's go back and revisit Walkerton for a minute. There were lab test reports telling people at the municipal level that there was a problem with their water. However, with the breakdown in regulatory authority, with the reductions at the Ministry of Environment, no one knew what to do. No one was required by law to report to the medical officer of health or to report the urgency to the Ministry of Environment. That is still the case, Dr McQuigge says, with the regulations put in place by the government. They don't address one of the central issues that arose in Walkerton. They just don't meet the test.

I'm urging all government members and I'm urging all members of the House, recognize the need for this legislation; recognize that it addresses one of the most serious and most widespread problems in Ontario today; recognize that it will assist municipalities, it will assist municipal officials, it will assist outside agencies, it will assist provincial officials, it will assist provincial organizations and it will assist the government itself, but most of all it will aid the citizens of Ontario in acquiring once again confidence in the quality of our drinking water and confidence that governments, whether municipal, regional or provincial, have more of the tools that are necessary to take on this very important issue.

I urge all members, recognize what this legislation does, that it is a very big step forward, and not only is it a big step forward but it does a lot in terms of enabling governments of the day-municipal, regional and provincial-to do more of what must be done and to do it very quickly.

Again, Mr Speaker, I'm asking all members of the Legislature for support and I thank you for the opportunity to participate.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): I only have a few minutes to comment with respect to this bill and I'll say initially that I intend to support it in principle.

I think all of us in this House are concerned that the public in this province are confident in our water supply, that it's safe. Any of us who travel to the Caribbean or Mexico or even some of the European countries are told, "Don't drink the water." We don't have that here and we don't want that here. We want it to be safe.

I think all members of the House will do whatever they can to make our drinking water safe, and this member is trying to do that, although the bill appeared to have been introduced shortly after the Walkerton incident and it may be premature because we do have Justice O'Connor, who has a public inquiry underway which may reveal a number of things. It may reveal some problems with the provincial regulations, the municipal testing procedures. We don't know. So in that respect the bill may be premature.

I don't intend to repeat the comments that were made by the member from Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, who commented that Bill 96 does duplicate efforts that are underway to ensure water safety. In fact, he said that many of the sections don't go as far as what we're already doing. But that doesn't say that I don't support the member in what she's trying to do.

The leader of the third party has indicated he's going to take her place in response, or that someone in the New Democratic caucus is going to take her place, and I'd like some comments. I'm only going to comment on a couple of sections, with the time allowed, including sections 11, 12 and 13, dealing with an advisory council, and

section 14, which deals with the testing of the private water system.

Section 14 says, "The minister shall, at the request of any user of a private water system, cause the water to be tested in accordance with subsection 4," and then it goes on to deal with establishing "regulations to establish contaminant and substance levels." If I understand what that

section means-the member is from the city and isn't from the country-I can tell you there are thousands of private wells around this province, and if that

section means that all the private wells in this province shall be tested by the province of Ontario-I mean, as a result of Walkerton, as I understand it, between May and September of last year, there were 27,884 water samples tested in labs across the province.

Walkerton has got everybody scared out of their wits and now, in that same period, over the same time period, that number has risen to 467,968. When you go to have your water tested, for the benefit of my friends who live in the city, you go to the health unit, you get a little bottle and you go home and take the sample and you take it back and it's tested. That's how it works. That isn't what

section 14 says.

Section 14 says that the province, the state, will test all the private water systems. I must confess the state doesn't test the septic systems. It doesn't test my car. It doesn't test a whole slew of things. The onus is on me, as an owner of a private well system. My time is already almost expired; I don't have time to talk about-

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): Your time is up.

Mr Tilson: It's not quite up, to my friend.

I must say, although I support in principle the water advisory council, that creates a whole slew of bureaucracy, of things that we're doing now. The province of Ontario, through the Ministry of Health, the health units, does all of these things. They do all of these things that are outlined in sections 11, 12 and 13. We're creating a whole new level of bureaucracy which, I must confess, the Liberal and New Democratic caucuses have done in the past, which is why we ended up in this economic mess in this province.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): As you may suspect, I will be supporting the bill before us this morning, because I think it will make a significant contribution to improving the water safety in Ontario and reducing the risk to our water supply. The overall issue that we have when we deal with the role of government is: what role should government play in our personal lives? Most people would recognize, for instance, that government shouldn't build cars, that government shouldn't be involved in the steel industry in terms of the manufacturing of steel. In other words, there are many areas where the private sector should be involved and government should not be involved.

One area clearly where government has a role to play-and this would be felt by people of all political persuasions except the most extreme of ideologues-is in the protection of our environment and, specifically in this case, the protection of our water supply.

I was as concerned as, I'm sure, many others on this side of the House when we heard about the Red Tape Commission being established. Governments in the past have reviewed regulations on an ongoing basis to establish which regulations would no longer be necessary. This government established the Red Tape Commission. One of its primary initiatives was to make recommendations to weaken both legislation and regulations related to the environment and to remove some of those regulations which I know some people found cumbersome and annoying but which were there to protect the environment.

This commission has been re-established; ironically, it was on the same day as the Walkerton story broke. The government had put out a press release that Frank Sheehan, former member for Erie-Lincoln, and Bob Wood, member for London, were both going to co-chair this particular initiative.

What we have emerging from that is a weakening of legislation and a weakening of regulations. What the public of this province want-yes, I know there are some people who do not, and to those on the government side who went around telling people, "We're going to get the Ministry of the Environment out of your face." I must say you've delivered on that promise, because the Ministry of the Environment is out of the faces of a lot of polluters right now. But the public-regardless, again, of political affiliation-want to see legislation of this kind passed and want to see the government play a central role in the protection of the environment.

There will be some who would say this is intrusive. Indeed, it is intrusive, but it is intrusive in a good cause. For instance, the creation of a water council whose mandate will be to conduct research on water issues and advise the minister is excellent, particularly if you can get people who are experts in the field, who are well schooled in the issues of waste water and drinking water.

It calls for the creation of a safe drinking water fund. Certainly we know that the fund which was established by the government of some $240,000, I think it is, is very important if it had more money in it. I'm going to turn this over to a colleague of mine in a moment.

I'm going to indicate my strong support for this particular piece of legislation, which has many areas in it that are of great significance and which will improve the water supply in the province of Ontario-as I drink some water in this province.

I should note that there are so many areas where people say government shouldn't be involved, but I want to make this point to you. In the field of the protection of the drinking water in our province, the government has a role to reduce that risk. It seems to me what happened when the government cut one third of the staff of the Ministry of the Environment and about 45% of the budget is that it increased tremendously the risk of a situation such as Walkerton arising in our province, and that is most unfortunate.

This bill contains, as I say, a number of provisions which will help to protect the water supply in this province. There have been other initiatives that people have advocated in this House, in this party, on the government side and in the New Democratic Party, which can also have a major effect in that regard. I simply want to add, as the critic for the official opposition, the Liberal Party, my strong support for this legislation and any other initiatives which will protect water safety in this province.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's my privilege this morning to address the member's bill, Bill 96, the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2000. I can say right off the bat that certainly each one of us here would support the whole idea of the purpose clause in the bill, and I will, for the sake of the record, read that. The purpose is "to recognize that people who use public water systems in Ontario have a right to receive clean and safe drinking water from them; to restore public confidence in the quality of drinking water throughout Ontario; and to protect and enhance the quality of drinking water in Ontario."

It goes on to mention the use of accredited labs and accountability to the Ministry of the Environment, and not only to the Ministry of the Environment but to the people of Ontario.

Minister Newman's initiative, I would admit, was in response to Walkerton. We all received a wake-up call, not just in my riding of Durham but I believe across the province of Ontario. I can tell you that the Operation Clean Water initiative that Premier Harris and Minister Newman announced was clearly in response to that. I believe it was fast, decisive action, and I respectfully say that the member's bill goes almost all of the way to support the initiatives within that bill. So you could say for the record I will be supporting the initiatives recommended in the purpose clause.

But, as the member for Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey mentioned, there are certain sections in the legislation that perhaps don't go as far as our own initiatives. I believe that our government's measures are the best way to ensure continued safety of provincial drinking water.

Some of the initiatives involved a series of consultations on small water treatment facilities, consultations on nutrient management which are ongoing under the Ministry of Agriculture as well, which involve strict environmental safeguards for agricultural practices and consultations on groundwater management.

I won't go over some of the details that my colleagues have already touched on. I know the parliamentary assistant, Toby Barrett, from Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, certainly has been out in the field working. I know for sure that he's actually been to Walkerton and in his own riding has made a point of informing himself of the ongoing concerns of our own need to have confidence in the water systems in Ontario. I believe the initiatives announced by Minister Newman, Minister Clement and the Premier are among the strongest in Ontario's history and I believe they're the strongest in Canada.

I would like to take a moment to read a few comments from my own observations within the riding of Durham. It's already one of the stringent requirements listed in Operation Clean Water, and here's what's been said within Durham. Ron Motum, supervisor of technical support for the regional municipality of Durham's works department, recently reported in one of my riding's local newspapers on Operation Clean Water: "A lot of these things, we're already doing. In some cases we're doing more than indicated in the new regulations."

So I think that in most cases the public civil servants in the riding of Durham, and I would dare say those people working in those very important public roles, take their jobs very seriously.

Mr Motum added that Durham region reports its findings to the Ministry of the Environment and the information about water quality is frequently provided to the public. In fact, I think Operation Clean Water goes one step further. It not only says that it will be frequent; it says it will be required.

Durham region also has information links for the public on water safety and instructions on well testing throughout the Web site, www.region.durham.on.ca.

Also, last spring, the Durham region associate medical officer of health, Dr Donna Reynolds, told the public about the tight rules that are followed in my area. She said: "In addition to testing that is required by the Ministry of the Environment, Durham region public health inspectors are responsible for the collection of random samples of municipal tap water throughout the region. The inspectors involved in water testing collect a minimum of 500 samples a year to test for E coli and other bacteria."

It's clear that the public needs that assurance and that confidence. I can tell you, not just in response to Walkerton, that each one of us has to take some responsibility.

The issue in my riding that's very important is the whole issue of private wells. This has been a wake-up call for each of us. They should test their wells regularly and respond accordingly. Those have been the instructions from the medical officer of health, and I can assure you, the message is that we want to support this legislation in the sense that it goes most of the way in which Operation Clean Water intends to move.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I too stand in support of this bill and I commend the member for introducing it. I would hope that everyone in the House supports it.

I'm from northern Ontario and I have a deep passion for northern Ontario and I never apologize for that. We have a problem in northern Ontario when it comes to our water. The problem is not solely in Sudbury. This is a problem throughout northern Ontario, so it's no small wonder that we, as the Liberal caucus, are opposed to the Adams mine project, which certainly does anything but guarantee clean water for future generations.

But let's talk about the more immediate concerns we have. Certainly my leader, Dalton McGuinty, travelled the province extensively over the course of the summer and visited places like Bruce Mines and White River; they are on boil-water orders. What a sad commentary on pristine northern Ontario that they have to be on boil-water orders. It just didn't happen naturally; it happened over a course of time by neglect of this government over the course of the last five years with its massive down loading. The pressure that they've put on municipalities is incredible, and this government will be held accountable by future generations for what they've done in the past and in the present.

In my home jurisdiction, in my city of Sudbury-and this will even shock the government members-there are 40,000 residents who cannot drink the water that comes out of the tap, because it isn't clean. Our region has brought in interim measures. We have four tanker trucks located in various areas in the south end of the city that people can come to and get water from this tanker truck so that they'll have drinking water. That's disgusting.

That's a crime, and it's because this government over the course of the last five years has not lived up to its responsibilities, as the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines and as a government as a whole.

Last night our very progressive regional council passed a resolution to fix this problem that's going to cost a lot of money. Part of that resolution was to ensure that the government and, in particular, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines come to the table with money, because that's what's needed to fix the problem.

We need an upgraded water filtration system at the David Street pumping station, we have to look at the Wahnapitei plant, and we have to make incredible modifications over the course of the next while to ensure that the 40,000 residents who are now getting their drinking water from tanker trucks will no longer have to do that. Imagine bathing in the following water: you can't bring graphics into the House any more, but you get a bottle of water, you colour it, you make it dirty brown, you put particles in it, and that's what comes out of the taps in the south end of the city.

Our community has had enough. The south end residents have told regional council very clearly and very distinctly, "We want it upgraded. We want to be able to turn on our taps and get clean water, not mud." In order to do that, this government is going to have to come to the table with money. I challenge you to do that.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): First of all, let me compliment my colleague from Toronto-Danforth in bringing forward such a crucial bill. I can't think of anything more timely. When we look back and try to determine what was the biggest single advancement in public health in the history of civilization, it really wasn't new technology, it wasn't new miracle drugs, it wasn't new methods of surgery; it was the provision of clean drinking water, the single biggest advancement in public health.

Now, in one of the richest countries in the world with one of the highest standards of living that we've ever seen, that very public health issue is threatened, threatened to the point where people have died. When I hear the member for Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey talk about the fact the bill may be premature-no, I say through you, Speaker; quite the contrary. This bill is long overdue. Perhaps if we had had this bill in place, we wouldn't have had Walkerton.

I want to mention something else while I'm on my feet. Virtually every member of the government caucus who has spoken this morning has gone out of their way to say that they agree with the intent, or they agree with the

preamble. There are words there to say that they agree; then they proceed to show where they disagree, where they've got criticisms. I predict, and we believe in this caucus, that the Tory members today will actually vote for this bill. That is not the real issue. If we follow the bouncing ball, what really matters is, will this bill find its way into committee and will there be public hearings to debate the issue? Because if that doesn't happen, all the words in the world mean nothing; the vote today means nothing. It's just camouflage.

We need to hear from this government, from every one of you who is going to stand in your place today and vote for this bill, that you intend to see the bill carried through into committee so that it has some real life. Without that, they're just performing a public relations exercise this morning. Certainly the people of Ontario, when it comes to clean drinking water, deserve more than a public relations exercise. They deserve the protection that is contained in Bill 96. So vote for it, yes, speak to it, yes, but make sure it gets to committee so it has life.

The Acting Speaker: Response?

Mr Hampton: On behalf of Ms Churley, the member for Toronto-Danforth, I want to thank members for their support, but I want to echo the words of my colleague Mr Christopherson. We're asking members here today to vote for this legislation because it is good legislation, because there is no other legislation like it in Ontario today, because it is overdue legislation, because it will go a great distance in equipping municipalities, regional governments and the provincial government with the tools that are necessary to protect and safeguard our drinking water.

But above and beyond that, we're asking members to support this bill going to committee and support this bill being subject to public hearings.

If we are really serious about protecting and safeguarding the drinking water of Ontario citizens, nothing else will do. If we're really serious about this and we are listening to the concerns of not only the citizens of Walkerton who have had their tragedy to deal with, but all of those other communities that are living now with boil-water directives and all of those other communities that are looking at multi-million-dollar costs in order to safeguard their drinking water, we can do nothing less.

This is legislation that needs to be passed here today and needs to go to committee and needs to be set forward for public hearings now so that citizens, wherever they may live in Ontario, will have an opportunity to take

part in this debate, will have an opportunity to outline the problems, the solutions they would prefer, and the general direction that must be taken.

I implore all members, do the right thing. Listen to your conscience; listen to your constituents.

The Acting Speaker: The time for this ballot item is now expired. The question will be decided at 12 o'clock.

INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ADOPTION INTERNATIONALE

Mr Cordiano moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 116,

An Act to amend the Intercountry Adoption Act, 1998 / Projet de loi 116, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur l'adoption internationale.

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

Mr Joseph Cordiano (York South-Weston): Let me say that I am pleased to be debating this bill today, but I am very discouraged by the fact that we even need such a bill to be introduced. The reason this bill is required is because the Intercountry Adoption Act has imposed a head tax on orphans who are adopted from abroad.

In this province today, we do a great disservice to families. What we're talking about here is the desire on the part of many people to create a family, to form a family. Families in this province face all kinds of difficulties. It's a great struggle to raise children today. It's not easy. I can speak from experience. Many parents out there are having a tough time. The fact that these parents would desire to create their own family should be honoured by this Legislature, should be honoured by every single one of us.

How do we in Ontario honour these families today? We honour them by placing a head tax on the heads of the children they want to adopt: $925 on top of the huge burden these families already face. Many of these families go into debt to finance the adoption process, up to $20,000. It is a huge sum of money. These are not wealthy families. These are families from a broad cross-section of Ontario with incomes ranging from low to middle to high income. What we're doing is imposing yet another hardship on these people. I can't for the life of me understand why any of us in this Legislature would support this most odious head tax. That's the only way you can describe this; it's a head tax.

The minister would respond by saying that this is a fee designed to recoup some of the costs associated with this adoption process. False. That is entirely false, because international adoptions that are finalized in another country are the adoptions that are required to pay the $925 head tax. Adoptions that are finalized in Ontario are not required to pay that head tax.

Let's examine that for a moment. If the process is conducted in the foreign country, all of the paperwork is done there. Therefore, I ask the minister, what additional costs are incurred by the ministry for this process to be completed in Ontario? The same home study that is conducted for Ontario adoptions-and that home study, by the way, is paid for by the adopting family-is conducted for foreign adoptions. There is no additional paperwork that is required to be done by the ministry. The safeguards that were in place that were brought about as a result of the Hague convention are there to protect all adoptions and all children who are adopted.

For the life of me I cannot understand what additional costs there are with an adoption that is finalized in a foreign country. There are none. The simple reason that there is this head tax imposed on these children, on these families, this hardship, is that the government decided that they could get away with it, and so they had a cash grab.

This is not a huge amount of money, but it is significant; it's symbolic. The $925 amounts to, I think, about $700,000 per year in revenue. But at the end of the day, it's not justifiable. These fees, this tax, are simply not justifiable. For a government that has defended itself by proclaiming it is tax-fighting and helping working families, nothing could be further from the truth. You're not helping working families by imposing this head tax. You have punished families who desire to create a family of their own.

We should, as legislators in this assembly, honour those families. Because, by God, they're taking on huge responsibilities. I can't justify this, and I don't think any one of us should stand up and be able to justify this. At the end of the day, there is no justification.

Let me examine a further fact. In other jurisdictions, they are supportive of family formations by way of adoption. In the United States, there are tax credits of up to $5,000 granted for families wishing to adopt abroad. The only debate that's taking place is how to increase that tax credit; not to eliminate it, but how to increase it. I think it's disgraceful that here in Ontario the opposite is true. I think it's shameful. Frankly, in other parts of this country-in Quebec-they have non-refundable tax credits that encourage family formations, that encourage adoption from abroad.

There is really no support for this to be a fee. I've asked the minister repeatedly, and frankly, I would have thought by now that the minister would have rescinded this tax, knowing that it was wrong. In fact, there is in the act a requirement that the minister review the tax after one year, and he promised to do that. I say to the minister, "Act now. Don't wait for a year to go by. Act now and rescind the tax," because many people would be grateful and thankful, and it would be a gesture to the people of this province that this government, this assembly, cares about families.

As it stands right now, this government is saying to families, "We really don't care. It's an additional burden. You're going to have to pay it. You want to adopt children from abroad, then that's a luxury. We don't care. We simply have no regard for that, and you're going to have to pay an additional $925 on top of the huge burden that exists and the costs associated with that," up to $20,000 to adopt children from abroad, and that's after-tax dollars. That is a huge amount of money.

We should, in this province, be encouraging family formation. We'd be encouraging couples that want to adopt from abroad. We are doing ourselves a great service, we are doing the people of this province a great service, we are acting in a very valuable way if we do that and encourage families. Let's go in the opposite direction. Let's provide additional support for people who wish to adopt children. That's what I'm asking the government to do eventually.

Today, we're dealing with the elimination of a head tax. That's all my bill asks the government to do. I implore the members opposite, I implore the backbenchers, particularly in the government, to consider what I'm saying. It is a simple act. It is a simple amendment that would eliminate the head tax. There's simply no reason in the world that this tax exists, as I've tried to outline for you. There is no justification for this additional head tax.

The minister is incorrect when he says he needs this to recoup costs. As I've demonstrated today, there are no additional costs to the ministry. This is simply a cash grab, and it cannot be justified by this government, or for that matter, any other government. In this province, we should be proud, we should be standing up and defending family formations and defending the right of individuals, because it is a right, to create their own families. So let's honour those families. Let's not disrespect them. Please support this bill.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I'd just like to take a few minutes to talk about the Intercountry Adoption Act and give some background. When we implemented the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, including all of its requirements under this convention, our government was required to pass an Intercountry Adoption Act. Under this act, the Ministry of Community and Social Services became the central authority for Ontario, with responsibility for a number of functions and processes related to international adoption.

The purpose of us becoming the central authority was really to have some procedural safeguards in place to protect the best interests of the children and families that were involved in intercountry adoption.

At the time we passed the act, all three parties agreed with the act. In the act was the ability for the director to charge a fee for services incurred by the ministry in fulfilling its roles. At the time, neither of the two parties raised this as an issue. We don't need legislation to adjust a fee. Right now the fee is $925. You don't need legislation to adjust the fee, because it's up to the director, right now in the legislation, to remove the fee if he wants, to reduce the fee if he wants. So it's not necessary to pass a piece of legislation to effect that change if the House decides that's the change it wants.

But I would say that at the time of the legislation, which got all-party approval, it was contemplated and it was in the act that there could be a fee for services provided by the ministry. What types of services does the ministry provide in order to justify this fee? One of the key things is licensing of people who facilitate adoptions, and being involved to make sure that all the guidelines are followed and procedures are followed to make sure that we don't have some of the horror stories that we've had before.

When we had the debate about this, the member opposite who is proposing this bill had some experiences himself, some horror stories that he talked about in intercountry adoptions. The reason why he wanted that act, along with the rest of the House, was to stop that from happening, involve the government in a way that they could safeguard things from happening again.

Many things have happened over the past with facilitators taking and extorting money from people, saying they are going to come up with a child for them from a foreign country. There has been misrepresentation of medical assessments of the child. The government, not being allowed to help with that, has allowed that to go on. There has been falsifying of documents, colluding with individuals. There is story after story about country after country about these things occurring.

So the ministry now, by the Intercountry Adoption Act, which this House unanimously agreed to, does several things and is responsible for several functions: they have to receive adoption applications from persons resident in Ontario; they have to determine that applicants are eligible and suited to adopt; they have to prepare reports on the applicants and transmit reports on applicants to the central authority in the child's country; they approve the proposed adoption and agree that it may proceed; they obtain permission for the child to enter and reside permanently in Ontario; they ensure that transfer of the child takes place in secure and appropriate circumstances; they keep the state of origin informed of the progress of the adoption process; and they take measures necessary to protect a child during a probationary placement.

These are all new roles that the ministry has undertaken.

Toward that they have already, for instance, hired four full-time staff. They are in the process of hiring another staff. They've already developed new standards and guidelines and procedural manuals and public information documents. They've licensed nine international adoption agencies, and there's a process to make sure that it can verified whether those agencies should be licensed.

So there is a whole variety of functions that have been undertaken, and that is the purpose of the fee. It's a fee for service, in effect. It was, as I said at the outset, contemplated when the legislation was approved by all three parties. There is a service that's being provided by the government, there is cost being incurred by taxpayers, and that's why today that fee is there.

As I said at the outset, all three parties agreed with this act, and this was in the act, contemplated by the act. It can be changed by regulation. If this House decides that there shouldn't be a fee, if this House decides that it should be a higher fee, if this House decides it should be a lower fee, that can all be done by regulation.

An act doesn't have to be passed to change the Intercountry Adoption Act.

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): I am very pleased to speak this morning on the act that has been presented to this House by my colleague.

I listened with some interest to the member for Niagara Falls. He did provide some history with regard to the act. He would indicate that all parties were in agreement with that part of the act that gives the power to the director to establish a fee to recover costs. I would suggest, however, that what is in place right now is not a fee to recover costs, because there is no difference in terms of the cost of processing intercountry adoptions. The cost is the same.

Where there is the discriminatory practice by this government, the government, the director, has decided that for those adoptions that are finalized outside of Ontario, the government would impose a $925 head tax. The government has not been able to demonstrate that, for those adoptions finalized outside of Ontario, there is $925 in administrative costs.

I think that it is important for this House to understand that as recently as August of this year, a family has filed a formal complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on this issue. It's important for the members of this House to understand that when families are adopting children from other countries, they have no choice as to where the adoption is finalized. It is the country of origin of the child that makes that determination. So this government is penalizing parents on an issue that they have absolutely no control over: where the adoption is finalized.

I find it interesting that a government that so regularly prides itself on cutting taxes is so quick to implement such an unfair and onerous $925 tax on families. My leader, Dalton McGuinty, has said that by imposing a head tax on children, Mike Harris has gone too far, and I agree with him wholeheartedly. I believe that we have an opportunity today in the Legislature to support legislation that will remove that part of the act that permits a director to make those kinds of decisions.

Certainly we on this side of the House, when we support those kinds of provisions, it's with the very clear understanding that any levy of such fees would be justifiable, and what my colleague has brought to the attention of our caucus is that in fact these fees are not justifiable.

The member for Niagara Falls has described part of the process, and certainly there is a variety of steps that must be taken to ensure that the families that receive children from other countries do that with the very best of intentions and with the ability to provide good homes for those children. But what this government has not been able to demonstrate is how they can justify that, in those cases where adoptions are finalized outside of Ontario, there is $925 in additional costs. Whatever costs are associated with adopting children outside of the country, they are the same whether the adoptions are finalized in the province or in the country of origin.

I believe, ladies and gentlemen, it is important that we as legislators take this opportunity to correct that part of the legislation that has enabled the director of this ministry to impose what I believe is an unjust and inequitable tax on people who look to build families in this country.

I thank you very much for the time this morning.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): Let me begin by commending my legislative colleague the member for York South-Weston, Mr Cordiano, on introducing such a bill. I realize that the member for Niagara Falls says that we don't need this bill, it doesn't need to be legislation, and technically it may or may not be so. But the fact is that somebody has to do something because the government has the power already to do something about it and they haven't. So somebody had to provide some mechanism to put the force of this House behind the effort to remove this head tax. I compliment Mr Cordiano on bringing it forward, because it is outrageous.

I heard, again, the member for Niagara Falls say, "All members of the House supported the original bill, the Intercountry Adoption Act, 1998." Somehow, by virtue of having supported that bill, we're now culpable in this $925 cash grab head tax. What nonsense. What absolute nonsense. We supported the bill because it was a good piece of legislation. Contrary to the government's line that all we ever do is oppose, oppose, oppose, that we never do anything positive over here in the opposition, well, there are numerous examples, and this is yet another.

Yes, we supported the original bill. I'm proud that we did. We will be supporting this bill, and I'm equally proud we will do that, because I don't think there is one of us in this House, and I go so far as to say including members of the government backbenches, who believed that by virtue of enacting the Intercountry Adoption Act, 1998, we were going to burden Ontario families with a $925 head tax. This is after many of those families have already paid up to $20,000.

They've already put forward up to $20,000 to bring a child from another country, in many cases a war-torn country, an emerging democracy, benefiting the child, benefiting in many cases the original country because they may not have the means to provide for all of the children, all of the orphans in many cases. Certainly it's beneficial to the families here in Ontario.

For a government that says they want to be about family, it's difficult for those of us on this side of the House to understand how a $925 head tax is of help to Ontario families, particularly when, as has been mentioned by the author of the bill, in the United States many of those states provide up to $5,000 in a tax credit to assist American families to do exactly the same thing.

In our own country, Alberta has refused to take the step that you've taken. Quebec actually provides up to $3,000 as a tax credit to assist families, because their government recognizes that it is beneficial to everyone. It's a win-win-win, until you get to Ontario, and then you get this bucket of cold water thrown on this wonderful activity that is bringing so much joy to so many people. For the government to say that there are added fees involved-my understanding is that the adoption agencies are already paying an annual fee of about $1,800.

Further to that, I remember when this government came into power in 1995, one of the first things they did was roll back a filing fee that had been imposed on businesses in Ontario to recover some of the costs of filing the corporate papers that have to be done within the Ministry of Finance. Their position at that time was that this is a user fee that business ought not pay. But today it's OK to put a $925 head tax on kids. Now, when did this government decide that children are a goods and service to be taxed at the whim of any government? When did we make that shift?

When did you decide that children are a commodity that can be taxed on a whim?

I find it particularly disturbing that on a day when earlier this morning we talked about families, about individual health, about community health, about safe water, about what happened in Walkerton, the very next bill we're dealing with after that is one where we're trying to get the government to recognize that we want Ontario families to be able to adopt. And we want, if they choose, for them to go to other countries. I defy any one of you to stand up and say where this is a bad thing, where there's something wrong with that. For somebody outside Ontario, you can't but take in the message that somehow we don't want children from anywhere other than Canada.

I have to say that I like to believe that's not the case, that's not what this government wants to say, but I say to the members in the government who are here today, what else can people determine when you've got the United States, Quebec and Alberta, about as diverse a political philosophy among governments as you're ever going to find, who decide to go in exactly the opposite direction and we tag Ontario families with almost a thousand-dollar tax to bring a child into Canada, into our province and into our communities?

It's going to be interesting to see how many members of the government actually stand up and defend the $925 head tax by virtue of voting against this bill. For any of you who are planning it, I say this to you, a cautionary note: I don't believe that this $925 head tax will stand the test of time. There will be enough pressure, there will be enough letters to the editor, letters to members, editorials, continuing public pressure that eventually it will be eliminated. Whether we're successful right off the bat with Mr Cordiano's bill or not, that is going to be the end result.

For every one of you who stands up today and goes on the public record saying that you support this, I believe you're going to regret it down the road when it's eliminated, and let me say probably with great fanfare.

The minister of the day will probably stand up and make a great pronouncement about how they care about families and how they care about what's going on around the world and that this is a wonderful thing that happens when a child is brought from another country here into Ontario and therefore, because they care so much about Ontario families and because they care so much about children, they're going to remove that awful $925 head tax, and every one of you that stands up here today is going to be left with egg on your face.

So I urge you to think very carefully, because this is one of those issues that you think really doesn't matter, that people aren't watching, but that has a way of coming back around a few years later and biting you, right when you're not expecting it and right where you don't want it.

Helen Christensen from Sault Ste Marie, my friend Tony Martin's riding, wrote to your minister. In her letter she said, "This fee clearly discriminates against families adopting and finalizing the adoption outside Canada. It appears to violate the Ontario Human Rights Code which provides for equal treatment without discrimination on the basis of family status and place of origin." I think Helen Christensen nailed this right on.

For her to quote from the Ontario Human Rights Code, which makes reference specifically that there should not be discrimination based on your place of origin-we're talking about babies born in a place other than Canada. You don't charge this amount to adopt from within Ontario, but you are charging this $925 head tax if the child is born somewhere other than Ontario.

I agree with Helen. If ever there was a clear violation of the Human Rights Code, this is it. I suspect, if you don't back off this head tax, this anti-child tax, you're going to find that you'll be forced to by law, and that wouldn't be the first time either. How many times have we seen human rights issues being taken to the courts because the only way Ontarians can get their rights under the law with this government is to take them to court? And you've lost, time after time after time, and not based on some obscure technicality. You were told right up front, "You're violating the law. It's unconstitutional.

You're violating our charter. You're violating our Human Rights Code." You were told those things. You're being told those things again today.

Now, we've only heard one Tory backbencher speak. I assume, since the member for Niagara Falls is a parliamentary assistant, that he is probably speaking for the government, for the cabinet. But this is private members' time. This is that one rare, unique opportunity that each of us has as individual members elected to this honourable place to speak and vote our mind, our heart and our conscience. I implore every one of you to please move away from these sterile, technical arguments about why this is justified.

If you stand back and look at what other jurisdictions are doing, right next door to us, in the western part of Canada, south of the border-look at the direction they're going in. Stand back and look at the broader picture. For a government that says they care about families, it's wrong. It was wrong to bring this in, and it's wrong to leave it in.

Let me say that I believe this is also one of those moral issues, that if every government backbencher joined with us here in the opposition benches and voted unanimously-you don't have to make a speech today, you don't have to burn your political bridges within your caucus. We understand. We're in caucuses; many of us have been in government, been in cabinets. We understand the pressure that each of you is under. But you can use that right that each of us has to stand in your place. By silently joining with us, you will speak louder than any other speech or method of communication you could use today.

You know what? You'll feel good about yourself, you'll feel good about it, because this is wrong-it's wrong, it's wrong, it's wrong. There's no other way to look at it.

Let me close my comments by saying that the Children's Bridge is an organization that has lobbied strenuously on this issue, and their slogan is, "Making families happen"-making families happen. Why does it seem to be that your motto is, "Making families pay"?

Now is the time to do something that's important. This may not be the issue that's going to be on the front page of the paper tomorrow-I bet it's not-and it won't be the lead story in the newscast, but you know, for those families in Ontario that are going through this adoption process, this is probably the most important thing that will happen in their lives. They want to know that their parliamentarians and their government supports them in bringing a child here into Ontario and helping to raise them in the benefit of an Ontario family. Do the right thing. Vote for this bill.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to join in the debate with respect to the Act to amend the Intercountry Adoption Act, 1998, brought forth by the member from York South. Certainly the member is very well intentioned. He has been a supporter of the legislation that was brought in much earlier. Certainly, when he was speaking on this legislation, he said, "I'm very happy to speak on this issue, a very important piece of legislation that is before us that, yes, I have advocated for.

I'm glad to have this opportunity, because I want to talk about some of the things that members have been alluding to with respect to this legislation going further than the Hague convention. In fact, let me start by congratulating all members of the House, because this is one of those times when all of us can take some pride in the fact that we've all worked together on it. I want to congratulate the minister-yes, I'll do that, on one of the rare occasions that is possible-to say that she has brought forward a piece of legislation that we can all support."

Those were the very words of the member from York South. I believe him, that at the time he meant those words.

He goes on to say, "I just want to say in conclusion that I again thank all the members for being involved in this debate and for the support and consensus we've built around this issue.

"Two things come to mind. First, and the member for St Catharines had mentioned this earlier, the ministry needs to devote enough resources to ensure that this bill is implementable in our own jurisdiction. Further to that, the ministry, because of its contacts and the dealings it will have and has had with other jurisdictions, should be encouraging the adoption and the ratification of the Hague convention in other countries. I think you can work with other countries to ensure that happens.

By the way, the standards that are being proposed in this piece of legislation that was brought forward by the minister for Ontario are contained within the Hague convention. It's very important to recognize that."

So the member is essentially saying that he's a very strong supporter of the bill, and he's also saying, "Make sure you put enough resources in place to make sure it works."

So one of the tools that were put in place-it doesn't say "tax"; it's a case processing fee. It's basically that, a case-processing fee for something, an adoption that occurs within the borders of another country. Let's keep that in mind. And it can be waived in financial hardship.

What the member is essentially saying with regard to this particular fee-and I think his intentions in terms of how he supports the bill are understandable-the spin that he's trying to put on this with respect to this amendment that he's trying to put, which he could have put when it first came forth, is the tax issue. It is totally divorced from what this is about. The fee that has been put in place is for the purpose of making sure that we have the resources to do what is necessary.

For example, what do they do? The creation and maintenance of file of an adoption application; review of the adoption home study based on Ontario and foreign country requirements; preparation of a letter of approval for foreign authorities; checking of documentation and preparation of correspondence for forwarding to appropriate adoption authorities; liaison with the licensed agency; approval of adoption practitioners, adoptive applicants, government authorities; review proposed adoption correspondence with foreign adoption authority; preparation of notice of agreement for immigration purposes; review and tracking of adoption process; and follow-up reports.

The members out there say there's no justification, there's nothing done, that this is just a punitive measure with respect to a potential adoptee. That couldn't be further from the truth. I think the process that has been put in place with respect to a case processing fee is just that, something which is happening within another country and is designed with the intent and purpose of putting the best interests of the children and the families first.

We put the resources in place to make sure that this works in terms of staff and a procedure. That's what the member wanted; that's what's been put in place. For him to say here today that this is a tax is completely not in line with what everybody unanimously agreed with when this act was passed.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): I am very happy and proud to stand and commend my colleague from York South for bringing forward this private member's bill, because it is extremely important.

This Intercountry Adoption Act was passed, as my good friend from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford said, in 1998. The fact is we must remember that before this was done, it was my colleague from York South who had actually encouraged, coerced, done everything, so that this government could bring this forward. This was done a long time ago, and we know that these things are provincial matters to be endorsed the Hague convention.

In my limited time I won't dwell too much on the role of the Hague convention, but it's important that we recognize that a convention is there to standardize adoption requirements and therefore improve the processing-not, in itself, that other countries can charge processing fees, as my good friend from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford said.

The record of this government has been extremely poor when it comes to this. It's awful. Because after my colleague from York South-Weston tried his best to bring it forward-he was very gracious when the minister brought this forward in the manner that he commended them for doing so, after years of doing that-that came in 1998.

We didn't know that it had taken them almost two years to bring a regulation in force. In that regulation, what this government has done is levy $925 as a head tax on children who are being adopted outside. It is disgraceful.

Canada is known over the world as a compassionate and caring society, a society that reaches out sometimes when other nations have problems and also that we accommodate those. One of the greatest things we can do too is how we treat our children, abroad or here. Those who want to develop a family are being encouraged, but this government, at any opportunity it gets, taxes individuals. Here we are now with a process that has been done outside of this country. No domestic adoptions are being charged any fees, but right here in Ontario those adoptions that are done outside are now being charged $925 an opportunity to do so.

The member for Niagara Falls said it's a regulation and we can change it any time we want. It is surprising that he said that. I presume the minister sent him to give the ministry line here. The fact is regulations can be changed. I was a cabinet minister. I know that. They can sit around the cabinet table and change it like that. Then my colleague who brought this forward will have to bring a bill in, in order for the government to change its mind.

Many of the private members who have an opportunity to speak and change their views on this, an opportunity to show some compassion and an opportunity to show that we are not discriminating in any way with other people, are now taking the party line, the ministerial line of saying that there is a processing fee they have to go through. It is surprising enough that those who are adopted here don't have any processing fee, those that are done domestically right here in Ontario, but those processes that are done outside are now charged $925. I think it's rather disgraceful.

We must understand too that they are saying we must make protection, that these individuals are following the procedures and laws laid down by the Hague convention. The fact is, this government also has agencies licensing that form and those agencies which are processing the adoption here are charged $1,800 just to exist, to make sure they follow those regulations.

The individuals who are doing the adoption sometimes have a cost of over $20,000. They are not only paying $20,000 in all kinds of expenses to get the adoption here, but the government sees an opportunity in which to charge $925 again.

I strongly support this and I hope that we all, as private members here today, support this in eliminating this head tax that we have placed on children today who were adopted outside of this country. I want to commend the member for York South-Weston for doing so.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): I am pleased to speak to Bill 116, the Intercountry Adoption Amendment Act.

Adoption is a very serious issue and it's one that has been important to me for a long time. It's an issue that our government considered important as well. That's why we passed the Intercountry Adoption Act in 1998. Our government was motivated, regardless of what the members of the opposition say, by the intent to protect the children and the families who were adopting them.

There is an emotional commitment made by these families, and we wanted to protect that. We wanted to protect the interests of the children and the families. That is why we implemented the Hague convention on international adoption. It's a very serious issue.

You people on the opposite side, the Liberals and the NDP, want to talk about this as a head tax. They want to talk about this as a head tax, they want to talk about it as passing on costs. Let's talk about it, OK? You differ from me on where these costs should be passed. I don't believe they should be passed on to the taxpayer. The taxpayer is already overburdened. We don't need to pass on any more taxes. This is not a head tax; this is a straight cost recovery issue.

You seem to think that we can hire additional civil servants and it doesn't cost anything, that these civil servants work for nothing when they process the papers. I've got news for you. They don't, and the people of Ontario know it.

When the member for York South-Weston spoke to the Intercountry Adoption Act on October 1, 1998, he said, "These families are not asking for anything. They're not asking for resources. This is not going to cost any additional dollars. They are not asking for the state, the government, to help them.... They're simply asking for the chance to create and form their own families."

I ask the member, what has changed in two years? Now you think the state should contribute. You're a typical Liberal. You think you can suck and blow at the same time.

Interjections.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Clearly that language is unparliamentary and ought to be withdrawn.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Kitchener Centre.

Mr Wettlaufer: Thank you, Mr Speaker, I appreciate that. I applaud the member for bringing the issue of international adoption forward. But when he does it in this manner, I'm sorry but I can't support it. I cannot support it. You're playing politics with it. You people in the Liberal Party think you're experts at the art of political gamesmanship. That's all you're doing here. But the public knows better.

You think that people who are adopting these children from out of the country, and who pay $10,000 or $20,000 a year, shouldn't be saddled with the additional $925 cost-not a head tax, a cost. So you think the rest of the people of Ontario should pay that cost. This can be waived in the case of families that can't afford it, but in general the families who are paying this $10,000 and $20,000 can afford it. I don't think the people of Ontario should have to fork over $925 so you can play political games.

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): The member from Kitchener Centre has raised a couple of issues that I think need to be directly addressed. Firstly-

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: We need to have some quiet in here. If we're going to have private conversations, let's take them outside. I'm sorry for interrupting. The member for St Paul's.

Mr Bryant: The member from Kitchener Centre said the sponsor of this bill, the member from York South-Weston, was playing politics. I urge all members in this House who have been sitting here and listening, and those who did not hear the member's initial speech, to ask their colleagues what he said. He is not playing politics with this. He is saying we need to make an amendment, all right? Whether or not the members here want to call it a process fee, as it has been described, or a head tax, we can all make intellectual arguments until the cows come home. Fewer processing fees create jobs. Read my lips: no more processing fees.

In all seriousness, the families of Ontario see this as a head tax. If it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck, it's a duck. This is a head tax. That's how it's perceived by Ontarians.

That's how it's perceived by a constituent in my riding, Erica Kerr, who brought this issue to my attention. She came to my office in March this year and told me there was a $925 head tax on the child she wanted to adopt from China. She told me that if you adopt domestically, there is no head tax. Interestingly, she told me that if you adopt from Korea or Haiti, there is no head tax, as the result of other legislation.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that we adopt a head tax for those countries. It doesn't make any sense that the Canadian baby, the Haitian baby or the Korean baby is not subject to the head tax, but all other babies are. This doesn't make any sense, and we know that. A mistake has been made. We're not playing politics. We brought forward a private member's bill; this is the way we do it in the Legislature. Obviously there's going to be a vote. It's going to send a message to the minister that it's time to get rid of this head tax.

Erica told me that she was willing to devote time and energy to this issue, but she told me that she was afraid to speak up because she didn't want to jeopardize the adoption. So we have to do that in this House, because many families feel they are silenced. They don't want to jeopardize the adoption from the foreign country. So now is the time for us to get rid of the head tax.

She has written the minister a number of times. She addressed a number of things the member from Kitchener Centre raised. Firstly, he said the cost should be passed on to the taxpayers. Well, the same point was raised by the minister. Obviously the member was reading from speaking points.

Here is what she wrote back to the minister on June 4: "You wrote that `the taxpayers will be required to partially subsidize the process.'" Here is her response: "We adoptive families are taxpayers, Mr Baird! Exactly what part of the process are we, the taxpayers, subsidizing?"

The member from York South-Weston has already made the point that this processing fee is a myth. All the processing is paid for already by these parents through their adoption agencies. Sometimes they invest $18,000 to $20,000, sometimes $20,000 in fertility treatments even before they walk down this path.

I wish I could go further and read through Ms Kerr's letter, but time is of the essence. Let me just say that we know young families in Ontario today are increasingly turning to adoption. I know this. I have adopted members in my family. When my brother was adopted in the early 1970s, it was very different from today. Younger families are waiting until later in their lives before they decide they want to have children. As a result, many find that they can't, so they turn to adoption. Not enough local adoptions? They turn to international adoptions. They need help from governments in building these families.

These families and these children are miracles. My brother and my niece are miracles. My niece was adopted from a foreign country. Mercifully, my sister and brother-in-law live in British Columbia, so they were not subjected to this head tax.

I say to members of the government: put it in neo-conservative terms if you wish and say you want to cut the tax and cut the red tape here, but I appeal to you as human beings, for goodness' sake. People see this as a head tax; let's get rid of it. Congratulations to the member from York South-Weston.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean): In the few minutes-seconds-allowed me today, I just want to-

The Acting Speaker: It is a few seconds. In response, the member for York South-Weston.

Mr Cordiano: I want to thank all the members who participated in this debate, and I want to remind the members of the governing side particularly-the back benchers, if you will-that they have truly an extraordinary opportunity here to do the right thing.

The Minister of Community and Social Services is present in this chamber at the present time. He will recognize that we will eliminate the power of the director to impose this fee, and that's why this amendment is called for. If we do the right thing, we will be granting adoptive families a real benefit and, more importantly, we will be honouring them and honouring all Ontarians by stating very clearly, symbolically, that we are very supportive of the formation and creation of families in this province and, whether they come from foreign countries or they're adopted in Ontario, we do not make any distinction.

We are not going to discriminate against those families by imposing an odious head tax on the children of those families.

Members, let's stand up today and do the right thing. There are few opportunities in this House to act honourably by doing the right thing. We are all honourable members in this House, but there are few occasions when we can rise above the partisanship of this House. I implore you to understand that this is not a partisan issue. We will be doing those families a great justice by doing the right thing and supporting this bill I have brought forward.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and again, thanks to all those members who participated.

The Acting Speaker: The time allotted for ballot item 36 is now over.

SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR L'EAU POTABLE SAINE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now revert to ballot item number 35.

Ms Churley has moved second reading of Bill 96,

An Act to restore public confidence in the quality of drinking water in Ontario. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ADOPTION INTERNATIONALE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now deal with ballot item number 36.

Mr Cordiano has moved second reading of Bill 116,

An Act to amend the Intercountry Adoption Act, 1998. Shall the motion carry?

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will call in the members first for ballot item number 35, second reading of Bill 96. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR L'EAU POTABLE SAINE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Ms Churley has moved second reading of Bill 96. All those in favour will please stand and remain standing until their name is called.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Churley, Marilyn

Clark, Brad

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Cunningham, Dianne

Curling, Alvin

DeFaria, Carl

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Gravelle, Michael

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Hodgson, Chris

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Marland, Margaret

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McLeod, Lyn

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Hastings, John

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 82; the nays are one.

The Acting Speaker: I declare this motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96, this bill will be referred to the committee of the whole House.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Mr Speaker, here's the real test for government members. I direct it to the general government committee for public hearings.

The Acting Speaker: Ms Churley has requested that this be referred to the standing committee on general government.

All those in favour will please stand and remain standing until you're counted.

All those opposed will please stand.

You may be seated.

The ayes being 35, the nays being 48, a majority is not in favour, so pursuant to standing order 96, this bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

We will now open the doors for 30 seconds to permit members to come in and go out.

INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ADOPTION INTERNATIONALE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Cordiano has moved second reading of Bill 116. All those in favour will please stand.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Clark, Brad

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Cunningham, Dianne

Curling, Alvin

DeFaria, Carl

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hampton, Howard

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Marland, Margaret

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McLeod, Lyn

Mushinski, Marilyn

O'Toole, John

Palladini, Al

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Witmer, Elizabeth

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise.

Nays

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Coburn, Brian

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Newman, Dan

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Wood, Bob

Young, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 46; the nays are 37.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96, this bill will be referred to committee of the whole House.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (York South-Weston): I'd like to refer the bill to the standing committee on justice and social policy.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Cordiano has asked that the bill be referred to the standing committee on justice and social policy.

All those in favour of Mr Cordiano's request will please stand.

You may be seated.

All those opposed will please stand.

You may be seated.

A majority is not in favour. This bill will be referred to the committee of the whole House.

All matters relating to private members' public business now being complete, the House will recess until 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1218 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): The Minister of Health has abandoned her responsibility to the Sudbury Regional Hospital, and today I stand here to insist that she honour her commitment made to my community.

Minister, let me bring to your attention the desperate plight of the Sudbury Regional Hospital administrators, who, despite their very valiant attempt, can no longer make do with your negligent underfunding policies. Our hospital's deficit for this fiscal year has ballooned from $10 million to $15 million due to your restructuring costs. Our hospital is not alone; hospitals across this province are bleeding deficits because of your negligent policies. Add to this our operating deficit since 1997, and this presents a $30-million deficit.

It doesn't end there. This spring our hospital announced a severe physician shortage, to the point that operating basic emergency room services came into question. You and your ministry turned your backs on our community, and in a desperate 11th-hour move our hospital had to commit $6 million to keep doctors in Sudbury, bringing the deficit to $36 million.

Minister, you committed to covering 85% of our restructuring costs. To date you owe our hospital $10.6 million. This debt has been ongoing for three years. The fact is, you don't pay your debts and you don't live up to your commitments.

My constituents want quality health care in a quality hospital for a quality community. Today they want some quality from you and your Premier.

KYLE PETTEY

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise in the House today to extend best wishes and good luck to Kyle Pettey, a world-class athlete and resident of Northumberland.

Kyle's story is nothing new to members of this Legislature. When I last brought this outstanding young man to your attention, he had just set a new world record in the discus competition. Kyle, his friends and his family were keeping their fingers crossed that he would soon qualify for the Canadian Paralympics team. I'm pleased to announce today that on Monday, Kyle will be leaving for Australia, representing Canada at the year 2000 Paralympics. Kyle's pursuit of an Olympic dream is now a reality.

Despite being diagnosed with cerebral palsy and breaking his back in a farming accident, Kyle has become one of Canada's top amateur athletes. I admire Kyle's tenacity, hard work and dedication, as they have earned him the honour of being the Canadian record holder in the javelin, shot put and discus competitions. He is ranked among the top 10 in the entire world.

Mr Speaker, I know that you join with me in extending our best wishes to Kyle as he competes in Australia. To Kyle, his coach John Potts, and his family, may outstanding success be the least that you achieve.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): I am going to basically applaud a newspaper that's not in my riding but from the riding of Ernie Parsons from Prince Edward-Hastings county. The Belleville Intelligencer today did a two-page, in-depth study on Waste Management Inc of the United States, highlighting all the criminal and environmental convictions that company has had in the United States that total over $300 million in fines, not only EPA fines in the United States, but also crimes including wire tapping.

That is the type of corporate culture we have in waste management in the United States, and this is the very company-its Canadian subsidiary-that is expanding landfills in Ontario. They are the ones who will take over if Toronto signs a contract with the Adams mine consortium-we'll have to see about that-and also Napanee; they're trying to expand the landfill there to take garbage. They have landfills all over. I think our Ministry of the Environment must be on guard against companies such as this invading our province of Ontario.

I say to the Minister of the Environment, because the environmental assessment for the Napanee site has not been completed, that the ministry should be giving full due diligence toward the parent company of Canadian Waste Management to make sure that any landfills in this province that are sited are managed by responsible and environmentally caring companies.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): The staff of the Canadian Mental Health Association perform an incredibly important role in all of our communities. Down in Niagara South, the 16 staff persons work on a daily basis with some of the most vulnerable people in our community, people who have been released from psychiatric hospitals, people who suffer disabilities and ailments, people who are indeed members of our families, our sisters and brothers, our spouses, our parents, our children. The workers of the Canadian Mental Health Association are diligent, professional and committed in their work with these incredibly vulnerable people.

The workers at the Canadian Mental Health Association in south Niagara over two years ago exercised their right to form a collective bargaining unit, CUPE local 1287. In over 26 months, they still don't have a first contract, and they've been forced out on strike with no return to the negotiating table by their employer, the board and the executive director of the Canadian Mental Health Association, Niagara south.

I was pleased to join these 16 workers last week where we spoke to the community about the plight the board is creating for these incredibly vulnerable people. I'm going to be joining them again tonight, along with Wayne Samuelson from the Ontario Federation of Labour and Sid Ryan. We want to impress upon the community how important it is for their employers to get back to the bargaining table and end this strike. It's a strike the workers don't want and the community doesn't need. It's up to the board to end it.

RED CROSS

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I rise today to pay tribute to an international organization that plays an important role in all our communities. The Red Cross is celebrating 100 years of helping others. Ever since Swiss businessman Henri Dunant initiated services of the Red Cross Society in 1859 to help the injured on the battlefield of Solferino, the vivid Red Cross emblem has grown to be a universal symbol for help and humanity. The International Red Cross and Red Crescent movement is alive in 165 countries.

In York region, the Red Cross will be celebrating its 100th anniversary, saluting its many volunteers and workers who make the programs a success. Ildiko Luxembeerger of Newmarket, a nurse who has volunteered since 1992, has spent time in Puerto Rico helping residents rebuild their lives after the devastation of Hurricane Georges. Donna Chanda of Newmarket is working as a project leader at an orthopaedic centre providing prosthetics to landmine victims in Tajikistan, one of five former Soviet republics that has been besieged by years of civil war. The region of York has the strongest youth representation for the Red Cross in Ontario.

Although the Red Cross promotion of a humane bond has still not stopped war and other tragedies from occurring, knowing there is never a shortage of caring, devoted workers to lend a helping hand gives hope for a better future.

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): It was with great interest that I listened to the Premier's fall action plan. "More to do to keep Ontario strong" is the supposed basis of this government's agenda. I would suggest that Mr Harris get his head out of the office towers of Bay Street and realize what is happening in rural Ontario and to the agricultural industry in this province. What Mike Harris and his government fail to realize is that agriculture and Ontario farmers have been left behind as the rest of the Ontario economy moves forward.

If Mike Harris and his Common Sense Revolutionaries were truly committed to a "strong economic plan and a vision for a prosperous Ontario," they would realize that you cannot ignore the economic impact of agriculture to this province's economy. Agriculture is the second-largest industry in this province. The agri-food sector contributes $24.4 billion to Ontario's GDP and employs nearly 682,000 people.

This government has failed to realize that our farmers have faced one of the worst years ever: unprecedented rainfall, countless acres left unseeded and commodity prices that continue to fall. The farmers of this province can compete with anyone in the world if they have a level playing field. They cannot compete with the treasuries of the European Union, the United States, or Quebec for that matter. Farmers across this province spoke loudly and clearly in public meetings throughout August. Did Mike Harris and his government listen? Did they even hear the voice of rural Ontario? Our agricultural industry is in crisis. The time for action, Premier, is now.

LIBERAL PARTY

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): As the new school year moves forward, students in about two dozen schools are actually being greeted with the smiling face of a Liberal MPP. The Liberal leader issued a challenge to members to return to the classroom to see what a day in the life of student is like. Perhaps Liberal members should spend a day on a workfare placement to see what that is like. Perhaps Liberal MPPs should spend a day with our hard-working police officers to learn about the challenges they face.

The reality is, while we need to interact with our constituents, what we really need to do is to listen to them and to act. This Liberal stunt is meant to distract Ontarians from the reality that the Liberal leader still has no policies and no vision for Ontario-truly a triumph of process over substance.

You know what the member for Ottawa South's hometown paper, the Ottawa Citizen, called his idea? "Grade A loopy." Sounds about right to me. Our students, all Ontarians, need no Liberal media stunts in our children's classrooms. The Liberal leader obviously just doesn't get it.

BREAST CANCER

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): On Sunday thousands of people will join in the Run for the Cure, to raise money against breast cancer.

It's time for the Ontario government to step up its

part in that fight. It is a tragic, unacceptable fact that the mortality rates for breast cancer are higher in Ontario than in seven other provinces and 45 states. There is no excuse for that.

If we want to understand why more women die of breast cancer in Ontario, we might start with the intolerable fact that many women in this province are waiting as long as seven months for radiation treatment. Seven months-when the recommended time for treatment is within four weeks.

This is a crisis with no short-term solution, other than to send more and more people away from home to get the treatment they need. It is a disaster that could have been prevented, and the tragic reality is that unless the government acts quickly to put more staff and resources in place for the future, there will be even more cancer patients sitting on waiting lists for agonizing lengths of time.

If we want to start reducing the death rate from breast cancer, we need to give women access to treatment much sooner. We also need more effective screening programs. The Harris government could begin by requiring that all mammography machines meet accreditation standards. The women of the Liberal caucus asked for this six months ago. We've had no response at all from the Minister of Health. Some 60% of mammography machines in Ontario are not accredited. Surely there's enough money in the budget of the province of Ontario to make sure that women can at least get an accurate diagnosis. Surely the minister cares enough to at least respond to our concerns.

All those who join in the Run for the Cure on Sunday will be there because they care. Let the Ontario government show that it too cares.

CARE FOR KIDS

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): It's an honour for me to rise today in this House to tell you about Care for Kids, Toronto, a fully registered charitable organization founded by Sonny Goldstein, who is a constituent in my riding of Thornhill.

As we all know, the threat of losing a child from a life-threatening illness or the untimely death of a child is one of the hardest moments in a family's life. Care for Kids, Toronto, helps to make this journey a little easier. Care for Kids was established to provide additional assistance to the palliative care program of Sick Children's Hospital that is so capably headed by Maria Martin, the palliative care coordinator at the hospital.

Through their generous fundraising campaign, Care for Kids is able to provide that extra assistance to families who require nursing support at home, life-sustaining equipment, access to resources for emotional support, and support programs for siblings who have lost a brother or sister.

On behalf of the people of Thornhill, I would like to congratulate Sonny and Michelle Goldstein of Care for Kids, Toronto. They are to be truly commended for the charitable foundation that they have established. I would like to wish them every success as they begin to plan for their fourth annual fundraising event in the year 2001.

Please join me in recognizing Sonny Goldstein, founder of Care for Kids, Toronto, who is with us in the Legislature today.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The people of Ontario are concerned because the federal government is ramming through Bill C-3, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, its proposed replacement for the Young Offenders Act.

Ontario has asked the federal government repeatedly to give us the opportunity to present our concerns with this flawed legislation. These requests have been denied. The people of Ontario have been demanding real reform to the federal young offenders legislation for years. They want effective legislation. They want violent youth to be held-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Come to order, please. Attorney General.

Hon Mr Flaherty: The people of Ontario want effective legislation. They want violent youth to be held responsible for their crimes and face meaningful consequences. Instead, Ottawa is giving us the same book with a new cover.

In the new bill, as with the existing legislation, young people can commit adult crimes and not face adult consequences. There are no fundamental improvements over the existing Young Offenders Act. Bill C-3 will not increase jail sentences, it will not automatically try 16- and 17-year-olds as adults when they commit adult crimes, it will not require mandatory jail time for youth convicted of offences involving weapons, it will not guarantee that youth convicted of serious crimes such as murder will serve adult sentences, and it will still place the onus on the crown to move cases involving more serious violent offences to adult court.

The government of Ontario has voiced its objections to Ottawa time and time again. Ordinary citizens have voiced their objections as well. Petitions have been signed by thousands of Canadians, not only here in Ontario but in other provinces. Despite these protests, Ottawa is pushing ahead. This week the federal government has brought this legislation back to the House of Commons. The federal Minister of Justice may have introduced a number of amendments, but there are no significant changes that will add new protections to the public.

I am calling on Ottawa to hear the people of Ontario, especially the victims of crime, and sooner or later the people will be heard. As I told the federal justice minister in Nunavut at the recent federal-provincial-territorial meeting, "If you're not prepared to make meaningful changes to this bill, then ultimately the voters will decide if you are right." This may be the last opportunity for the current federal government to give the proposed Youth Criminal Justice Act some teeth.

Therefore, the government of Ontario condemns the weakness of the current federal Young Offenders Act and urges that it be scrapped and replaced with a tough new law that holds young criminals accountable for their actions; rejects the changes proposed by federal Bill C-3 because they do not go far enough to address the concerns of law-abiding citizens but merely repackage the flawed, weak Young Offenders Act under a new name; particularly condemns the federal government's attempt, through its legislation, to shorten some jail sentences for crimes committed by young offenders; asks that 16- and 17-year-old persons charged with serious, adult-type offences should automatically be tried as adults; and demands that young people convicted of violent, adult-type crimes should be subject to adult-length sentences.

I call on all members to speak up on behalf of the people of Ontario and victims of crime. Unfortunately, I believe that it's going to take a change of government at the federal level before Ontario's concerns are addressed and meaningful legislation is introduced.

The Speaker: Responses?

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): I thought it was bad enough that Tory MPPs would engage in infomercials for the NRA, but that a Tory minister would use this Legislature as an infomercial for Stockwell Day is a disgrace.

Well, well, here we go again: a government bankrupt of ideas when it comes to issues of safety of our streets, a government bankrupt of ideas in terms of a mandate to fulfill for their constituents. "Nothing else to do? What'll we do? Let's bash the feds," they say. "That'll work; that'll get us some help."

Here's the problem: I'm a member of the provincial Parliament. I'm proud to be a member of this Legislature. There are 103 of us here. We have an honour. We fill our seats. We try to do our best for our constituents, and we have a legislative jurisdiction. Yet this government would like to turn this Legislature into the farm team for our national federation. This ain't the farm team. We have business to do in this province. If you want to be the official opposition critic for justice, go right ahead.

I can't imagine greater hypocrisy when it comes to crime. Here the government has wanted the federal government to bring forth legislation. It's happening. OK. What is the government doing about crime in this province? We all know their first shot was the famous squeegee bill. What was more important to this government? Was it youth crime? Was it domestic violence? Was it organized crime or squeegees? We know the answer. The answer was squeegees.

Then, what we had for a year from this minister was that 80% of the time he stood up he would talk about either squeegees or the federal government. No substance, all talk, no action. What do we have here as we return back in September? Do we have the reinvigorated Common Sense Revolution that was promised by the Premier? No. What we have is more talk about other levels of government.

I'll tell you something. I'm not going to stand here and defend another level of government. I don't want the federal government and the provincial government to be fighting over crime. Let's start fighting against crime in this province.

Meanwhile, you want to talk about youth crime and this government's contribution to it. Let's talk about guns. This is the government that would put guns in the hands of 12-year-olds. This is the government which didn't think it was at all important to deal with the issue of imitation firearms. "No, no, no," said the Attorney General and the Solicitor General when an initiative was introduced by the official opposition, "dumbest thing I ever heard."

In any event, I'd like to say that there is so much more that we need to be doing in this province. Let's pass Bill 6, Rick Bartolucci's bill, because in this province we have young victims of prostitution every day in our streets infecting our society. There's something that the provincial Legislature could be doing instead of blaming the federal government.

Let's right now pass the phony gun bill instead of going through the political charade of rereading another bill that's already before us so that we can deal with an issue which-by the way, in addition to being a nightmare for victims and being a nightmare for victims of crime, B