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

June 8, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Jun-08 (PDF)

L069 - Thu 8 Jun 2000 / Jeu 8 jun 2000

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

CITY OF OTTAWA AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA CITÉ D'OTTAWA

WELFARE REFORM

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WATER QUALITY

DURHAM SCHOOLS

ARCHIVAL PRESERVATION

AIR CADETS

PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

HIGHWAY ACCIDENT

WOMEN OF DISTINCTION AWARDS

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROFESSIONAL GEOSCIENTISTS ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LES GÉOSCIENTIFIQUES PROFESSIONNELS

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ENERGY COMPETITION

REGULATION OF GEOSCIENTISTS

ENERGY COMPETITION

ADRIAN FILLMORE

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

ONTARIO CLEAN WATER AGENCY

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

WSIB PREMIUMS

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE POLICY

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

WORKFARE

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

PETITIONS

SUPPORT PROGRAM

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

HIGHWAY SAFETY

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

ABORTION

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

BRONTE CREEK PROVINCIAL PARK

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

CITY OF OTTAWA AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA CITÉ D'OTTAWA

Mrs Boyer moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 79,

An Act to amend the City of Ottawa Act, 1999 / Projet de loi 79, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1999 sur la cité d'Ottawa.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member for Ottawa-Vanier.

M me Claudette Boyer (Ottawa-Vanier) : C'est vraiment avec fierté et enthousiasme que je m'adresse à l'Assemblée législative pour entamer la discussion sur mon projet de loi 79, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1999 sur la cité d'Ottawa, qui vise à s'assurer que le gouvernement provincial reconnaisse la dualité linguistique de la nouvelle ville d'Ottawa, que ce gouvernement reconnaisse l'existence de groupes linguistiques à travers le Canada et que la région de la capitale nationale reflète ce fait.

I rise to speak on my private member's bill, which advocates official bilingualism in our nation's capital.

En tant que première femme franco-ontarienne à siéger à l'Assemblée législative de la province de l'Ontario, je me suis fait un devoir d'appuyer tout effort qui assurera la reconnaissance des droits linguistiques de la communauté francophone.

I speak here today with the ever-increasing conviction that the restructuring of Ottawa should never take place without including wholeheartedly the recognition that the French-language fact has a pivotal role to play in the daily operations of our national capital.

Mais avant de poursuivre, laissez-moi vous expliquer la raison pour laquelle je reviens à la charge avec ce projet de loi. En décembre dernier, lors de l'adoption du projet de

loi sur la restructuration de la ville d'Ottawa, j'ai été extrêmement désappointée, extrêmement frustrée du fait que le premier ministre de l'Ontario, Mike Harris, et son gouvernement ont manqué à leur devoir de Canadiens et de Canadiennes en laissant tomber la recommandation du conseiller Shortliffe portant sur le statut bilingue officiel de la ville.

Tout comme la commissaire aux langues officielles, M me Dyane Adam, j'estime que l'étude détaillée préparée par le conseiller spécial, M. Shortliffe, à la suite d'un processus de consultation très intensif, constituait une toile de fond appropriée à la nouvelle structure urbaine, y compris les aspects linguistiques, qui rejoignait à la fois les considérations d'efficacité et d'économie.

Je tiens à répéter que M. Harris a manqué une chance inouïe, une occasion inouïe, de ne pas aller de l'avant avec cette recommandation que la ville d'Ottawa soit déclarée officiellement bilingue, et ce par voie de législation provinciale. Quel affront aux francophones. II avait vraiment une occasion en or de démontrer aux francophones de l'Ontario qu'il croyait en leur cause et qu'il nous voyait comme des citoyens et citoyennes à part entière. C'est une question d'égalité et de respect. Quel manque de jugement. Quelle lâcheté de remettre cette décision au comité de transition présidé par M. Bennett.

Si la recommandation de M. Shortliffe avait été insérée dans la loi, nous n'aurions pas ce débat aujourd'hui. Ce gouvernement aurait dû se prononcer sur la question. II faut absolument adopter une loi établissant clairement le statut bilingue officiel de la nouvelle mégacité.

De plus, mon projet de loi demande que le conseil municipal désigne une personne comme ombudsman des services bilingues et dirige vers cette même personne les membres du public qui ont besoin d'aide relativement à toute plainte liée à leurs droits ou aux obligations de la cité visant au présent article.

Bien sûr, allez-vous me dire, ces mêmes points ont été abordés par le conseil de transition, qui a rendu sa décision le 8 mai dernier, lorsqu'il a annoncé sa politique linguistique, encore suite à une consultation publique très intensive avec les citoyens et les citoyennes de la ville d'Ottawa. Par contre, souvenons-nous que c'est une recommandation-ce n'est pas une loi-au conseil de la nouvelle ville d'Ottawa qu'il se devra de débattre et d'adopter lorsqu'il entrera en fonction le 1 er janvier 2001.

Il faut absolument, et je me répète, que la nouvelle ville d'Ottawa soit déclarée officiellement bilingue par voie de législation.

Lorsque nous parlons d'Ottawa, nous pensons aux institutions nationales et à tout ce que ces institutions représentent. Ottawa est un endroit dont tous les Canadiens et Canadiennes, n'importe leur langue maternelle, peuvent être fiers. La ville d'Ottawa n'est pas une municipalité comme les autres. Son statut de capitale nationale le tient à part de toutes les autres villes de l'Ontario. Ce que les membres de l'autre côté de la Chambre refusent de voir, c'est que les deux communautés linguistiques ont droit à la dignité provenant de cette reconnaissance de dualité linguistique de notre cher pays.

I must remind you very clearly that it is not only francophones who are asking this government to recognize the French language by declaring it official in Ottawa. Let me tell you that a large majority of Ottawa citizens of both official language groups support the Shortliffe recommendation that Ottawa be declared officially bilingual. It is absolutely reprehensible that the government of Ontario has decided to ignore what is seen by many as the single most important recommendation made by the Shortliffe committee looking into the restructuring of the city of Ottawa.

Ce n'est pas ce qu'on veut. Ce n'est pas une recommandation. On veut que ce soit légiféré une fois pour toutes.

At the end of the day, the issue remains a simple one: A nation's capital must reflect the reality of that nation's existence. Given its status as its nation's capital, the city of Ottawa must reflect the bilingual nature of this town, a nature where anglophones and francophones are equally respected and recognized, and equally entitled to the dignity that goes with such recognition. This government has the power to make it happen.

On se doit d'avoir un gouvernement qui reconnaisse ce fait. Ce dont est important de se souvenir, et ce qui est au centre de cette crise, c'est que la capitale nationale doit refléter le caractère du Canada. Ce caractère en est un où les deux communautés linguistiques doivent se rapprocher, doivent travailler ensemble.

I am asking you for your support to reconsider the official bilingual status of the city of Ottawa. On se doit de reconsidérer et de repenser à légiférer cette recommandation de M. Shortliffe et de rendre finalement la capitale du Canada, la ville d'Ottawa, officiellement bilingue, de reconnaître la dualité linguistique de ses citoyens et citoyennes.

Merci beaucoup, Monsieur le Président. Thank you.

M. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-Baie James) : J'aimerais premièrement dire à M me Boyer, la députée d'Ottawa-Vanier, que je n'étais pas supposé d'être ici tout le matin. D'habitude, le jeudi, c'est le jour qu'on retourne à nos comtés dans le grand Nord. Mon comté va de Timmins à la baie d'Hudson. On a beaucoup d'ouvrage à ce point-là, mais j'ai pensé très important de venir ici aujourd'hui pour donner mon appui à M me Boyer.

Ma vision est que, premièrement, la province elle-même doit être déclarée officiellement bilingue. Nous dans l'Assemblée législative avons le pouvoir, si on décide de le faire, de déclarer la province elle-même officiellement bilingue. En tant qu'Assemblée législative, on a ce droit. C'est nous qui gérons tous les services de la province qui viennent de la province elle-même. Ça veut dire tous les services des ministères de l'Assemblée législative et les services que donne notre gouvernement.

On est bien situés, comme députés provinciaux, pour prendre cette décision, et je veux dire premièrement, comme on a dit toujours au NPD, qu'il est important que la province, une fois pour toutes, se déclare elle-même officiellement bilingue.

Notre gouvernement, le gouvernement de M. Rae, a pris l'approche de mettre en place des services avant de déclarer la province officiellement bilingue, qu'on allait mettre en place des services comme les centres de santé communautaires, les garderies, le collège, et j'en passe-beaucoup de services pour les francophones.

Mais ce qu'on a vu, c'est que, quand un gouvernement comme celui de M. Harris est élu, il peut défaire tous ces services. On a vu la Loi 8 vraiment érodée par ce gouvernement provincial. On voit, quand on fait le délestage à toutes les municipalités, comme on voit dans la loi qui crée la nouvelle ville, la supermegacity d'Ottawa, que le gouvernement provincial peut beaucoup défaire les atouts et avances que nous avons faits comme francophones en ce qui a trait aux services pour notre communauté, dans les municipalités comme dans la province.

Je veut dire, comme député néo-démocrate et porte-parole des affaires francophones, que moi-même, notre leader, Howard Hampton, et notre parti provincial, par motion à notre convention, nous sommes prononcés sur la question que la province doit être déclarée officiellement bilingue.

Dès que nous nous rendons, comme province, dans ce débat pour déclarer des villes officiellement bilingues, on commence à faire un peu ce que fait M. Harris avec tout le délestage qu'il a fait aux municipalités. C'est un « downloading » ou un délestage de services aux municipalités jusqu'à un certain point. Mais je veux dire que je comprends son point. Je comprends pourquoi elle le fait. C'est pour cette raison que je vais appuyer son projet de loi, mais je veux dire, franchement, qu'on doit essayer de trouver une autre manière.

Ce qu'on aurait pu faire dans la loi, et si la loi passe à la deuxième lecture, c'est regarder à mettre un amendement pas mal proche de l'amendement que mon caucus NPD a mis en place sous la loi qui a créé la nouvelle ville d'Ottawa. Je peux dire qu'on n'a jamais eu l'occasion d'avoir ce débat parce que le gouvernement, par motion de clôture, a fermé le débat sur la ville d'Ottawa. M me Boyer ainsi que moi, comme députés francophones de la province et comme personnes intéressées, n'avons jamais eu l'occasion de mettre en place nos amendements à la loi. C'est pour cette raison, je pense, que M me Boyer est ici aujourd'hui avec son projet de loi.

En d'autres mots, tous les services que les francophones avaient avant la fusionnement seraient protégés par la loi provinciale, quelque chose qu'on est très capables de faire. Si on crée cette municipalité, la province peut dire, « On va au moins assurer que les services pour les francophones qui sont en place avant le fusionnement seront protégés, et que la municipalité doit offrir ces services aux francophones et doit se pencher sur la question d'étendre les services pour les francophones aux autres communautés. » On ne perd rien.

Venir et dire qu'on va créer une municipalité officiellement bilingue à travers l'Assemblée législative-comme j'ai dit, j'appuie son projet de loi parce que je comprends ce qu'elle essaie de faire comme francophone. Elle essaie de trouver une manière de protéger les droits de sa communauté, mais je pense qu'on aurait pu le faire un peu différément.

The Acting Speaker: You need to withdraw your one reference.

Je pense que cela pourrait se faire de façon différente. J'ai un peu peur que, si la province va commencer à déclarer que des municipalités soient officiellement bilingues, c'est un peu hors de notre responsabilité à l'Assemblée législative. Mais si on peut au moins voir le projet de loi aller directement au comité, on pourrait peut-être faire les changements nécessaires.

C'est pour cette raison que je demande aux députés de l'Assemblée opposés, parce que je sais que c'est sur ce point-là qu'ils vont s'opposer, qu'ils permettent au moins le passage du projet de loi à la deuxième lecture, qu'on nous assure que le projet de loi ira en comité. Là on pourra au moins avoir le débat pour exprimer ses inquiétudes ; le parti du gouvernement aura une chance d'en parler, comme nous on a des inquiétudes de notre bord, pour trouver une manière de protéger les services pour les francophones de la région de Vanier et de la région de Sudbury et d'autres municipalités qui vont être fusionnées.

On n'a pas eu la chance, comme j'ai dit plus tôt, parce que le gouvernement a fait clôturer la loi. En ce faisant, tous les amendements que l'opposition avait à proposer auraient pu amener des solutions au projet de loi qui, dans mon opinion, était mal fait. On aurait au moins trouvé une solution pour les citoyens des municipalités qui se trouvent fusionnées à la suite de ce nouveau projet de loi.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean): I am very pleased to have an opportunity to address the bill put forward by the member for Ottawa-Vanier and to deal with this issue yet again in this Legislature. I think it is important, not just of provincial significance but of national significance, that we have an opportunity to address this particular situation.

It is a very important matter, and having been born, grown up and lived my entire life in the nation's capital, I appreciate the significance and what it means to people of all linguistic backgrounds to have a capital that is truly bilingual. I can tell you that I have lived in a truly bilingual capital my entire 59 years. It's true that the capital in which I lived was not officially bilingual, and it is also true that there have been situations that have had to be improved from time to time, that will continue to exist and will continue to be improved upon as we develop the national capital area.

Ottawa has always provided bilingual services as a municipality. I was fortunate enough to be a member of one of the early regional councils, commencing in 1970, when we dealt with the question of bilingualism in the regional municipality, which had been set up a year or two earlier. To look back at a little history on that, I sat with the present member for Ottawa-Vanier's predecessor of happy memory, Mr Grandmaître, who was then the mayor of Eastview. He changed the name to Vanier, much to the chagrin of his late mother, I might add. If it was most upsetting to anyone, it was most upsetting to her.

The mayor of Ottawa at that time was a man by the name of Pierre Benoît, whose mother tongue was French. Eugène Bellemare, who sits as the federal Liberal member for Gloucester-Carleton at the present time, was my seatmate at regional council and was on that committee, as was Reeve MacQuarrie of Gloucester and Reeve Haydon, later the mayor of Nepean and later the regional chairman.

It's very interesting to think back to why we embarked on that campaign and why we became engrossed in that debate, because a few years earlier, in 1969, the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr Trudeau, with the Premier of this province, Mr Robarts, and the Premier of the province of Quebec, Jean-Jacques Bertrand, had made a very significant change in the tripartite agreement executed by all three governments.

At that time, the capital of Canada was deemed to have been expanded to cross the river and include portions of the province of Quebec: Hull, Gatineau and Aylmer. A commitment to bilingualism had been entered into by the three leaders on behalf of the people they represented. As a result of that, the Trudeau government commenced a building campaign on the Hull side which saw 35,000 civil servants transferred from downtown Ottawa; buildings, jobs and the centre of the city of Ottawa transferred to the province of Quebec. This was the new capital. This was the commitment to bilingualism.

I come to this Legislature today and I hear comments about insults to francophones. Where is your commitment to minority rights in the province of Quebec? Are you aware of the legislation that Quebec City has imposed? Do you not understand that the national capital, by that tripartite agreement, included portions of the province of Quebec? Is this the capital city that you wish to impose this form of bilingualism upon? Where is the commitment? Where is the understanding?

The people who rose up and commented as the bill was passed for the amalgamation of the municipalities-and I think back to federal minister Dion's comments, federal minister Copps's comments, the Prime Minister's comments at that time, which were reflected by the member for Timmins-James Bay this morning. Once again, when the language police marched through to Shawville in recent months, there was not a word from those people-not one word.

We have a national capital area. We had the transfer of those jobs. We have a commitment from the people of Ottawa-Carleton, a commitment they have lived up to and that the governments of the city of Ottawa and the other constituent municipalities of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton have lived up to and will continue to live up to, and will be dictated by the new council which comes into power on the first day of January of next year and will make that decision, as is only appropriate in a democratic situation.

Please, no more rhetoric with regard to insults to francophones, not when we're experiencing what we're experiencing in the other half of the national capital, on the north side of the Ottawa River.

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell) : C'est un plaisir pour moi. Je dois féliciter ma collègue la députée d'Ottawa-Vanier pour le dépôt du projet de loi 79, loi modifiant la loi de 1999 sur les services bilingues de notre nouvelle ville, la ville d'Ottawa.

L'Assemblée dans son entier doit appuyer ce projet de loi sans hésitation, cette loi qui assurera les services dans les deux langues, assurera la continuité du développement économique non seulement dans la région de la capitale nationale mais aussi dans notre province, qui bénéficie de 54 % de notre produit brut à l'exportation.

Dans la région d'Ottawa-Carleton actuellement, nous comptons plus de 120 000 de citoyens francophones ; dans la province, plus de 500 000 francophones, sans compter les francophiles ; dans le pays en son entier, plus de neuf millions de francophones. La population mondiale compte plus de 500 millions de francophones sur ce globe. Lors du dernier sondage qui a été mis en place par le Ottawa Citizen, nous avons trouvé que 82 % de la population qui a répondu au sondage était en faveur du bilinguisme à Ottawa.

Pourquoi devons-nous présenter ce projet de loi ? C'est qu'actuellement, il y a toujours un grand danger avec notre gouvernement qui est en place. Nous savons que le rapport du commissaire Glen Shortliffe avait bel et bien recommandé, dans sa recommandation 4, que la ville soit reconnue bilingue, mais le premier ministre de cette province, M. Harris, a décidé autrement.

Cela a fait couler beaucoup d'encre, mais n'eût été cette position, nous ne serions pas dans la position aujourd'hui de débattre un projet de loi que les gens de ce pays regardent dans son entier, ceux qui ont accès au poste de télévision sur lequel nous transmettons les débats de cette assemblée. Je suis sûr que beaucoup de ces personnes surveillent le débat. Mais encore là, j'ai reçu une lettre tout récemment, qui est datée du 17 mai. Je veux lire le deuxième paragraphe :

« À sa réunion du lundi 8 mai, le Conseil de transition a adopté une politique linguistique qui lui permettra de s'acquitter de ses responsabilités tout au long de son mandat et qui servira de recommandation », je dis bien de recommandation, « au Conseil municipal de la nouvelle ville d'Ottawa.

Pourquoi devons-nous commencer à débattre encore une fois le sujet linguistique pour surtout la région de la capitale nationale ? Lorsque je regarde ce gouvernement, lorsqu'il a transféré une quantité de services aux municipalités dans le délestage, nous n'avons voulu en aucun temps mettre en place des lois ou des sections dans les projets de loi qui assureraient la continuité des services bilingues dans les 23 régions désignées bilingues sous la Loi 8, la loi de Bernard Grandmaître, qui on appelle le père de la Loi 8. C'était certainement lui qui a mis cette

loi sur pied pour la protection de nos francophones.

Je me rappelle, après cette décision du ministre du temps des Affaires francophones, que nous avons fait plusieurs appels. Un rapport est sorti comme quoi plusieurs-je dis bien plusieurs-des municipalités à l'intérieur des 23 régions désignées bilingues ne continueraient pas à donner les services dans les deux langues, dû au manque de financement. Nous, les Libéraux, durant notre campagne dans la dernière élection du mois de juin de 1999, avions garanti que nous redonnerions 50 $ mille à chacune des municipalités afin de nous assurer qu'on pouvait continuer de donner des services dans les deux langues.

Je regarde ici un discours livré par M. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, qui est le secretaire-général de l'Organisation internationale de la francophonie, le 3 mai dernier. On disait que la francophonie, c'est aujourd'hui 55 États et gouvernements qui ont rejoint en toute indépendance et en toute liberté notre communauté-plus loin on disait aussi qu'entre 1990 et 1998, le nombre de francophones réels a augmenté de 7,7 % et le nombre de francophones occasionnels de 11,8 % une province où nous avons la capitale nationale, et ce gouvernement ne lui a pas voulu reconnaître l'importance du bilinguisme. Je crois qu'il est aujourd'hui impensable que le gouvernement va voter contre cette loi.

Aujourd'hui, si nous n'acceptons pas cette recommandation ou ce projet de loi-là, je commence à être un peu épeuré de cette position-là. J'ai fait parvenir une lettre à M. Claude Bennett, qui est le président du comité de transition, le 16 février dernier, lui demandant de reconsidérer la position du gouvernement lors du comité de transition. Il m'a répondu le 1 er mars que le tout serait laissé au comité de transition, et puis dans la lettre du 17 mai que j'ai mentionnée tout à l'heure on veut bel et bien reconnaître l'importance d'une ville bilingue.

Je crois qu'aujourd'hui nous avons la chance de prendre position, ici-même à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario, et reconnaître l'importance de ces services.

Perhaps the debate can be crystallized as two issues: First, what do the people of Ottawa want and how is that to be ascertained? Second, what is the best method to accomplish that objective, which is, in principle, the delivery of local services, and should that be done through a municipality in terms of the implementation?

In dealing with this issue we must be cognizant of the fact that the province has not designated any municipality in Ontario as bilingual. Instead, municipalities are given the authority to use the provisions of the Municipal Act or the French Language Services Act, where applicable, to provide French language services in the municipality. French language services authorized by municipal bylaws in the area covered by the new city of Ottawa which exist on December 31, 2000, will continue to be provided by the new city unit until its repeal or amendment of the bylaws.

The council of the new city will consider the recommendations of the transition board in developing its own bylaw and policy on this issue.

I would like to refer to the Ottawa Citizen of May 10, 2000. In the

article it says: "... Ottawa area francophone politicians yesterday lined up behind the proposed bilingual policy of the new city of Ottawa.

"The region's francophone mayors as well as the Liberal House leader Don Boudria"-that's from the federal government-"one of the fiercest backers of a bilingual Ottawa, all praised the policy recommended Monday by the transition board. They say it recognizes the bilingual character of the new city and should be supported.

That's certainly an endorsement of the local politicians in Ottawa, and the well-respected federal member, Don Boudria, with respect to how to best deliver services-municipal services, I may add.

The French Language Services Act and the Municipal Act give municipalities the authority to provide a full range of service and to conduct their day-to-day business in both languages; for example, passing bylaws and resolutions, adopting official plans, conducting council meetings, keeping minutes of council and committee meetings.

The fundamental issue with respect to what's the best way of delivering this service, which is in issue here, seems to have support locally with respect to the transition board's recommendations about how this is to be delivered. When one cites the principle of how to deliver local services, the principle is simple: That should be done by the municipality.

But there's also another issue here in terms of whether there's been sufficient input from the citizens of the new city with respect to whether they want this. This week there was passage of a law which will allow municipal ities to hold binding referendums on municipal issues. Speaking of Bill 62, direct democracy through local referendums: "One advantage of the new law is that it establishes that a referendum must be solely within a municipality's jurisdiction-meaning no more time-wasters such as whether to declare a city nuke- or gun-free.

These referendums will also be binding-meaning politicians will have to get serious about what they ask for because they might just get it." That's out of a Toronto Sun editorial dealing with referendums.

The law is very clear in terms of direct democracy about how we deal with this issue, whether there's public support for it, and if there is, how you implement it. It would seem that the new city of Ottawa has already dealt with this through a transition board, set out recommendations and seems to have local political support. From a fundamental principle of how we deal with and deliver local services, that's a municipal responsibility.

Quite frankly, it would appear that the municipality has the situation well in hand. I would not support what the member is proposing based on what the local politicians seem to want.

M. Richard Patten (Ottawa-Centre) : C'est avec plaisir que je me joins à ce débat sur le projet de loi présenté par ma collègue d'Ottawa-Vanier. Nous, dans la région d'Ottawa-à l'origine c'est l'Outaouais-sommes fiers de cet esprit communautaire, et c'est pourquoi je suis heureux d'appuyer le projet de loi de ma collègue aujourd'hui.

As some of you may know, I was part of the government that originally brought in Bill 8, which rightfully sought to introduce provincial bilingual services where necessary in Ontario. It was introduced by M me Boyer's predecessor in Ottawa-Vanier, Ben Grandmaître, over 10 years ago. I had the honour of serving in cabinet with Ben at that particular time, and I know many of you in this House will recall him fondly. If he were here, I know he would be in support of this bill that is before us today.

It is the spirit of those principles, however, that we fought for back in those years, and I think they are still relevant today. The fact of bilingualism in Ottawa is irrefutable. The Ottawa area is a bilingual area. That is why the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, as it is currently constructed and constituted, is right now officially bilingual. Many of the members from Toronto or southwestern Ontario may not be aware of the bilingual nature of the Ottawa area. I want to assure them that this is a fundamental characteristic of our area.

Ottawa has another aspect that of course has already been mentioned in this debate: It's the capital city of our country, an officially bilingual nation, and of course this will not change. Ottawa may be the national capital, but it is also the second-largest city in Ontario, one of the fastest growing in the country and the fourth largest in Canada. Economically, it has emerged as the powerhouse in the high-tech sector in Canada, and its growth dynamics will be incredible over the next decade.

The current government may think this means that the Ottawa area can take care of itself. In fact, that is why they have not moved, they say, on this particular topic, but it does have the opportunity and has the legislative authority to legislate if it chooses to do so. Now, the government did not do this. The government had the opportunity to take care of this issue last fall. At that time, they appointed a very astute individual, Mr Glen Shortliffe, the former Clerk of the Privy Council, who delivered a report on municipal restructuring in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

When he delivered his report last November, he made a number of simple, straightforward recommendations, most of which were accepted by the government. On the topic of languages, he recommended that "the city of Ottawa will be legislatively designated a bilingual city, with services to be provided in both official languages where warranted."

So I'm saying that the government still has an opportunity. Yes, the transition team has made recommendations. Frankly, those recommendations were the basis of the existing policy that is there now. They didn't want to take the particular decision because they were appealing to two of their own ministers in the area to try and provide some support for them. I say that isn't thinking about the whole representation. They're happy to take the tax money from our particular area.

They're certainly not shy in imposing and being strong in terms of legislation that has impact on municipalities; I don't have to go into that. So this government is not shy about using its powers. But on this particular one, it could have graciously supported a report that was the basis of a study, that was the basis of what the people had communicated to that particular group, so I say they still have a chance to act. It is important to the nation, to the province and to Ottawa that the city is bilingual. This government can show some leadership and provide that designation.

Why is it that the great high-tech firm from France chose to locate in the Ottawa area, if not as an entrée to doing business in Canada and North America?

J'espère sincèrement que ce projet de loi de député aidera le gouvernement à faire preuve du leadership qu'attend la population de l'Ontario qu'il représente. Il n'est pas question ici de chercher quelqu'un à blâmer. Il est plutôt question de faire preuve de leadership dans des questions difficiles. Moi et mes collègues et notre parti sommes aussi plus que prêts à faire preuve de ce leadership.

The Acting Speaker: Response?

M me Boyer : Je tiens tout d'abord à remercier mes collègues de Timmins-Baie James, de Glengarry-Prescott-Russell et d'Ottawa-Centre pour leur appui, et qu'ils reconnaissent l'importance de mon amendement, qui est d'aller d'après la recommandation de M. Shortliffe et de finalement designer la capitale du Canada, la ville d'Ottawa, officiellement bilingue.

J'aimerais dire à mon collègue d'Ottawa West, yes, there's much improvement in the bilingual status of Ottawa. You're talking about Shawville. Shawville is in Quebec; we're in Ontario. Let that be said.

To the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford I must say that after the recommendations of the transition committee people said, "It's a start, but it's a minimum."

Il faut absolument aujourd'hui que vous acceptiez, s'il vous plaît, de passer cet amendement en deuxième lecture, comme mon collègue de Timmins-Baie James a dit, de le passer en deuxième lecture pour au moins nous donner la chance d'avoir le débat sur cette question.

Please give us a chance to have a debate on this question.

The Acting Speaker: The time for this ballot item has now expired.

WELFARE REFORM

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington): I move the following resolution: That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

(

a) Encourages the municipalities of Ontario to undertake more workfare programs in a manner consistent with the Common Sense Revolution's plan for breaking the cycle of welfare dependency and restoring able-bodied people to work;

(

b) Endorses the idea that there should be zero-tolerance for welfare fraud and abuse;

(

c) Supports a program of mandatory treatment for welfare recipients who use drugs; and

(

d) Endorses the Blueprint commitment to take further steps to reform welfare and encourage welfare recipients to find work.

I'm very pleased to rise this morning and debate this topic. June 8 is a very important day for many of us on this side of the House. This is the anniversary, five years to the day, of when we were elected to turn around Ontario. An awful lot has changed in this province over these past five years.

In 1995-it's hard to remember back-we were in a very bleak time here in Ontario. Ten thousand jobs had been lost over the previous four years; we were in an annual deficit position, shockingly, of $11.3 billion; and our debt had doubled in the five years between 1990 and 1995.

One of the most shocking statistics that sunk home to me and a number of people in my riding was that we had 1.3 million people on welfare. It was costing Ontario taxpayers about $6.8 billion a year. Ontario had the highest number of people per capita on welfare in Canada; approximately one in 12 people was on welfare. In a province we think of as being prosperous and healthy, that was a shocking thing.

Clearly, on this side of the House we've worked very hard to do everything we can to help lead Ontario back to prosperity. Taxes had been increased 66 times under the former government. We have reduced taxes well over that, having already implemented 99 tax cuts, with many more to come. We believe we are going to exceed our target of creating 725,000 jobs. Just recently, the ministry has announced not only a balanced budget for this year, but for last year as well. The Minister of Community and Social Services this morning is announcing that we have succeeded in taking 500,000 people off the welfare rolls; that's half a million people who will no longer be dependent on welfare rolls.

We have worked very hard to keep our promises. We have worked very hard to restore this province to prosperity. In the case of welfare, we have worked very hard to allow people the opportunity to get out of the welfare trap, to get back on the road to self-sufficiency and prosperity, and to return welfare to what it was originally intended to be-a stepping stone, an opportunity for assistance as a last resort-and most importantly, to develop welfare into what it was supposed to be, an opportunity to get back into the workforce, to develop skills and a sense of self-worth. That only comes when you're back in contact with the working world.

One of the things we did, most importantly, in the whole welfare file, and I would like to speak to that for a moment, was to remove people who were on disability from the welfare situation. People on disability should never have been on welfare in the first place and I was very pleased that we acted quickly to do that.

We have designed a much more generous program for those on disability, specially designed to meet their needs.

I would like to mention specifically some of the things we have done: removed the label of "permanently unemployable"; reinstated benefits if a job attempt fails; no longer require people on disability to go through eligibility testing every one or two years, except where their condition is expected to improve; allowed them to keep more of their assets and benefits from families, inheritances and gifts and so on; provided individualized employment planning which assists them with technological aids and devices so that they can secure and maintain employment.

The benefit level is about 47% more than if they were on welfare.

This, I think, was absolutely the right thing to do. I have had many constituents in my riding who, although they have some comments about how to still improve the system, have for the most part been very pleased and quite surprised because they weren't originally supporters of our government. They have been quite pleased that we undertook this program and have had strong praise for the changes we've made on this file.

At the very beginning of our term in office, we changed the welfare benefits. In 1995 we had the richest welfare benefits of any province in Canada-actually 35% higher. We reduced those rates so that they were much more commensurate with working wage levels, but our welfare benefit levels are still quite high: about 25% higher than the provincial average for single, employable people; 13% higher for single parents; and 9.6% higher for couples with children. Ontario welfare benefits right now are still the most generous earning provisions in the country.

So while we have made tremendous changes and given over half a million people opportunities to be back at jobs and in the workforce, we have made the whole system much more accountable.

We've undertaken four different tactics to improve the welfare system. One of the most interesting is encouraging municipalities to be partners with us in developing the workfare program. Earlier this week, the minister announced that we're actually ahead of our target in welfare placements, that 30,000 placements have been successfully undertaken with our municipalities. We're ahead of our target now and we are very pleased that our municipalities are becoming very strong partners with us. We certainly see that there's room for improvement. I have to say that's true for my own jurisdiction in Guelph-Wellington.

What we have done to assist our municipalities tangibly is provide $1,000 for every placement above its target. This year the province will be providing $7 million to various municipalities that have surpassed their targets. That money, in each jurisdiction, must be spent on helping those on welfare by either providing assistance to vulnerable children, supporting homelessness or through child care.

There is much more to be done on this file. We have said that under the welfare reform program, if you are going to be entertaining benefits on welfare as a temporary assistance program, you must be part of a workfare program and you must be part of a learnfare program. It's been quite a challenge to get these up and running in the face of so many reforms, but we're very pleased to see that this is happening and is on target; in fact, very slightly ahead of target.

What has been very distressing about welfare is to find situations where people have been abusing the system. There are a number of examples of people receiving welfare who have, for instance, been paying on credit cards greater amounts monthly than they have received on their welfare benefit cheques. Obviously that was a serious case of fraud.

Our view is that welfare is a very sincere program that needs to be given to those in need and so can be given only to those in need. Our welfare fraud hotline has been quite successful. The saving from determining people and taking away the benefits of those who have been ineligible and have been illegally receiving welfare has actually reached the astonishing number of $60 million, which of course is much better spent on those who truly need our assistance in either welfare or other programs.

Extended out, the additional costs would have been $38 million, so that's almost $100 million that has been saved in finding people who should never have been on welfare in the first place and were robbing those who truly needed the assistance of the program.

The other thing we promised in the Blueprint, and which is being established, was to allow case workers to indicate to certain recipients of welfare, if it's believed that they are on drugs, that a drug test will be required. It's absolutely impossible to hold down a job and be a productive member of society of you are on drugs, so that is part of our drug reform program, which we believe will strengthen the welfare program right across Ontario. Institutions like Homewood, in my riding of Guelph-Wellington, are very eager to provide their expertise in this sort of thing, to assist us in making sure that we are doing this properly.

I'm reaching the end of my time. I want to encourage colleagues in the debate this morning to consider the changes we have made in the welfare program, to consider how far we have come over the past four years on this file. The number of one in 12, 1.3 million people on welfare, is shocking for any jurisdiction, particularly for a province like this which has such potential. It is most disheartening for those individuals who have lost out on opportunities, and that's why we have been so intent on improving this program.

There is a saying in my riding, "By work and by worth we rise." I have always taken that to heart, and I feel that a job, any job, is an opportunity for advancement and an opportunity to learn new things and meet new people. Certainly with the 725,000 jobs we have created across the province, we are trying very hard to give everybody an opportunity.

What I'm hoping with this resolution today is we will have very vigorous debate. I'm very anxious to hear what my colleagues across the House will say, because in campaigns to date they have not been supportive of welfare reform. We think it's a very important part of making Ontario prosperous for each and every individual.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (York South-Weston): I'm very happy to speak about this area of concern and about the great opportunity this government has missed obviously in its mandate-and it's celebrating its fifth anniversary today. Perhaps this is the greatest symbol of this government's failure in its mandate. What's really disturbing to me is that this government has engaged in the great blame game, in the great scapegoating. It has done that extremely successfully. When it comes to welfare recipients, they have been the most victimized and the most scapegoated group of the bunch during this government's mandate.

You had a great opportunity to reform the welfare system and to move it forward. In fact, the opposite has taken hold. You have moved it backwards in time. You have moved it to an era we haven't seen in this province since the 1930s, before the Great Depression, where people are scavenging, where people are homeless, where people are destitute, where people are desperate and have been left behind as a direct result of this government's policies. The first thing this government did to welfare recipients was cut assistance by 22% right off the bat.

That had a devastating impact on people in this province at a time, we must recall, when the province was still mired in a difficult economic situation. We are coming out of that economic downturn just now, in the last number of years. Yes, there have been many more jobs created. And yes, there has been an economic boom, attributable to the great exports to the United States, the greatest boom we have seen in the history of this province, so it's no accident that a great number of new jobs were created.

It is a tragedy that this government has not used this era wisely and has not used this time, this great opportunity, to reform the welfare system as we know it and to modernize it.

I want to examine the points that have been brought forward for consideration in this member's resolution this morning, because they tell a tale about this government and how it has engaged, time and again, in the blame game. If something goes wrong in Ontario, it's the federal government's fault, because they haven't transferred enough funds for health care. It's the federal government's fault, because they haven't transferred enough funds for anything. As far as this government is concerned, they never take responsibility for any of their actions.

That's the first rule of this government in the way that it governs: never take responsibility, never take it to a level of accountability where this government is held to account for its actions or lack of action. We now see that tragically with Walkerton. It's taken to its most bizarre and most tragic end.

In fact, it's the erosion of one regulatory framework after another. It's the erosion of confidence in the system. This government does not believe in truly making changes that are positive. This government has made changes to get rid of the problem, as in the case of welfare. Workfare is nothing short of a fraud in this province, and I'm going to elaborate on why.

This government promised to put people back to work. It promised to take people forward and give them career options that they didn't have before. It promised to put them back in the workplace. In fact, the workfare program was an abysmal failure up until this past year. It's still a failure and a sham, and the only reason that the minister is able to talk about placements in the workfare program is because he threatened municipalities. He threatened them with cutbacks in administrative dollars for their social assistance programs.

If the municipalities failed to create these placements, then the minister was going to reduce the funding available to administer their social programs-a clear threat to those municipalities to create placements. What are these placements? These placements are nothing but temporary, meaningless, menial jobs.

I don't want to belittle the volunteer work that's been done by people in community after community; certainly we value that. But most of these placements are in that area, in municipal agencies or the kind of work that was done by volunteers and the kind of work that was done by municipal workers providing services. These welfare recipients, these people now on workfare are being put in those placements. These jobs are temporary. They do not lead to additional skills or skills enhancement. In fact, they're not providing any additional education for these people. They're temporary, they're stop-gap.

What happens when the economy goes into a downturn? Many of these jobs, which are not in the private sector, will continually have to be propped up by the government. The $1,000 per job placement will have to be there ad infinitum, and municipalities will not have the ability to sustain these placements over a long period of time.

This is the critical question: Will these jobs lead to permanent employment in the private sector? The skill sets that are required today are well beyond what is being offered in these job placements. We need better training and education.

The experience in Michigan has been that workfare has failed because of a lack of child care spaces. When the state of Michigan realized that it needed to spend a great deal more money on child care, then they were able to find that single parents could re-enter the workforce. The state of Michigan spends twice as much on child care as it does on social assistance payments to make certain that people are given the opportunity to go back into the workplace.

I want to address the other parts of the resolution very quickly.

Zero tolerance for welfare fraud and abuse: This government has, time and again, gone after people for defrauding the system. It has raised the spectre of this huge amount of welfare fraud. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is a myth. Seven hundred and forty-seven cases of convicted fraud in 1999, less than 1% of all cases, is not a huge crisis. That is not the stuff that governments should be focused on. There is a problem, but it's not the huge problem that this government makes out is prevalent throughout our society-again, scapegoating those people who are on social assistance: "We're going to test you for drug abuse."

In fact, the rate of incidence of drug abuse among welfare recipients is no greater and no less than among the general population. So stop scapegoating others, stop blaming others. Stop that insidious kind of governance. It leads to the end result of being a government that does not want to take responsibility, that does not act in the best interests of the citizens of this province, does not protect the public interests of the citizens of this province. When it comes to welfare, this government is an abysmal failure.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): The resolution that's in front of the House today from the member from Guelph encourages municipalities to undertake more workfare programs, also zero tolerance for welfare fraud and abuse, a program of mandatory treatment for welfare recipients who use drugs and to take further steps to reform welfare and encourage welfare recipients to work.

From a general perspective, I want to talk to this. Welfare should be temporary help when you need it and not a way of life. In 1995, there were three times as many people on welfare as there were in 1985. The average time welfare recipients collected general welfare assistance nearly doubled under the NDP government.

We've moved people with disabilities off welfare and into special programs that recognize their unique needs. The ODSP provides people with disabilities with 47% more benefits than their welfare counterparts and by far exceeds any program provided by provincial governments across Canada. The fundamental point is, people with disabilities are off welfare.

In 1999, some 106,458 stopped relying on welfare. Since 1995, we have helped nearly 500,000 people get off the welfare treadmill and get their lives back on track. We want to make sure that nobody in Ontario is left behind without the hope of a job and a better future, because quite frankly, the best program you can have with respect to social services is a well-paying job and a good economy to make sure that those social service programs, health and education are there for our citizens.

When we took office in 1995, Ontario had the richest welfare benefit of any province in Canada-35% higher than the provincial average. Ontario welfare income is 25% higher than the provincial average for single employable people; 13% higher for a single parent and 9.6% higher for couples with children. Marginal employment earnings were clawed back, punishing those who had the initiative to get back into the workforce and rewarding those who didn't try.

Today's Ontario welfare benefits include the most generous earning provisions in the country. Recipients can now take

part in work that they might have refused under the NDP because they would have lost their benefits.

With respect to fraud and abuse, I know the member from Lawrence trivializes it and casts aspersions without foundation. We established the welfare fraud hotline for the general public to report suspected fraud. It also resulted in termination of or reduction of benefits in thousands of cases where fraud was occurring. Between April 1, 1998, and March 31, 1999, assistance was reduced or terminated in 16,900 cases based on eligibility investigations. That was the equivalent of $60 million in social assistance that people were entitled to.

Interjections.

Mr Cordiano: Less than 1%. Don't distort the facts.

Mr Tascona: The members across the floor are ranting away. "That's nothing"; that's really what they're saying. That's a lot of money.

We've entered into information-sharing arrangements to help us identify people who might be abusing the system. We've introduced a zero tolerance policy for welfare fraud. People convicted in court of social assistance fraud will be permanently ineligible for future social assistance. We've terminated welfare for prisoners when they are in jail, and we've ensured that those who are no longer eligible for welfare do not receive free drug cards.

The Liberal record with respect to workfare is fairly clear. Neither workfare nor welfare is mentioned in the Liberal Party Web site. Secondly, Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals have opposed welfare reform every step of the way and they've voted against every single bill to implement it. The opposition leader, Mr McGuinty, has proposed a mandatory opportunity program for people on social assistance.

The NDP record speaks for itself. They liked the way welfare was before, when over a million people were trapped in the cycle of dependency.

The member from Guelph has stated very clearly what approach should be taken. I think she has put a lot of thought into this. Quite frankly, the initiatives that are being asked for are being done, and they make a lot of sense. I think the track record will speak for itself and history will speak for itself in terms of how to best approach welfare. That's how it's being done in the United States. That's the approach that has been mandated by a democratic government in the United States, so I don't know what the complaints are on the other side.

In conclusion, I support the resolution and I know that other members of the caucus will too.

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): I would like to say that it's a pleasure to join in this debate today, but I must say, one more time we are subjected to the Tory scapegoating of vulnerable people in the province of Ontario. I will be voting no to this resolution today, with great vigour and pride. I'm proud that I'm representing the interests of my constituents, many of whom are the most vulnerable people in our society.

The real story that needs to be told, that must go forth from here today is that the Tories, such an abject failure at the role of governing in Ontario, have turned back to something that they spent so much time on in their earliest days. Were we not here, we could be down at SkyDome with the Premier today witnessing him embroiling himself once again in an issue that they spent so much time on early in their mandate, in the first term, because they have nothing working for them right now. The province of Ontario is not being governed. They are not a government that is in control of their actions.

Everything that they touch has fallen apart, so they go back to something that gave them great joy around red meat issues in their first term. I think that's the real message that needs to be sent out and people need to be reminded of that.

This is the triumph of rhetoric over reality. Yesterday the member for Guelph-Wellington, in talking to American guests, said that the issues that are debated typically during private member's hour are issues that matter a lot to her constituents. I would say that I am joining this debate because I have many constituents who are on welfare and I work for those people every single day.

To hear the member from Barrie talk about how the Ontario welfare benefit is the most generous one-without putting into context the fact that the cost of living in the province of Ontario, and particularly in the city of Toronto, is so high-so as to suggest to people who are watching that those who are collecting welfare benefits are living in the lap of luxury, is an injustice. The benefits for an individual are something like $562 a month. Imagine, in the city of Toronto, trying to live, to sustain yourself, on that kind of monthly income.

No one is here to suggest that we should have people stuck in a cycle of dependency, but this government has done nothing to try and help those people. There's nothing in their intent except punishment, and that is the real shame. They talk the talk but they do not walk the walk.

I am proud to say that I work in the riding of Toronto Centre-Rosedale for citizens. This government across the way-and their most recent budget reflects this better than anything else-works for taxpayers, and they make a distinction. There are classes of people in Ontario now because of that government. We are not all citizens and all equal. They put taxpayers on a higher plane, and that speaks to a very real problem with this government.

Let us look back to the day when they cut welfare benefits by 21.6%. On the very same day, they also cut funding to the agencies that help people who are living on social assistance to get jobs, to improve their resumés and to get job skills. They talk about the need for people to get jobs and sustain themselves that way, but what have they done to improve or provide access to daycare for individuals who are on welfare and have children? They have done nothing, and that is the real story behind the Tory work on welfare. It's all show and no go. It does nothing in a positive way to really help people with the cycle of dependency.

Let's talk about drugs and addiction. I deal every day with many people who are struggling along that way. My community office is in a building that also has a methadone clinic, and you can only imagine the challenges that people who are addicted to drugs like crack cocaine and heroin suffer from. But what has this government done around that? If they really wanted to deal with crime and safety in my community, they'd put more police on the streets, to try to help that way, and they would invest meaningful dollars in programs to help people who are addicted to drugs. But they do not. They talk about it and they do nothing.

I should say that those of us who are dealing with real problems and seeking to address them in a real way, rather than a rhetorical way, are increasingly frustrated by this government, which talks the talk but will not walk the walk. If you want to do something about it, put money into treatment programs and provide daycare.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's my distinct pleasure and privilege to rise today and support the member for Guelph-Wellington in her resolution, which deals with welfare reform in the general sense and endorses a strengthening in the commitments made in the Blueprint, which I will be covering in my limited time that I'll be splitting with the member for London-Fanshawe.

I think it's important to start with the promise we made in 1995 to reform a system that was clearly broken. We had many references to the highest number of people on welfare. This just wasn't a positive situation for anyone in Ontario. We made commitments in 1995 and, as the member for Guelph-Wellington has stated, today I'm pleased to celebrate our fifth anniversary. June 8, 1995, is when the train stopped and we turned around to go back to the promises made and the promise of hope in the future for everyone.

Our plan is an inclusive plan. It's an economic plan, but it does include everyone. It includes people who were rendered permanently powerless in a system or trap of welfare. We made a commitment of 500,000 people off the welfare rolls, and we're closing in on that mark as I speak. There are half a million people fewer, who are actually bringing home their own food and their own paycheque, and I believe that's positive. The 725,000 net new jobs is clearly another target we made as a promise and a commitment.

In a general philosophical sense, I remember some of the terms we used while trying to communicate the plan by saying such things as, "A hand up instead of a handout." That was just a phrase at the time, but it's certainly an important empowerment. Behind that phrase is the idea of extending a hand to someone, the idea of extending hope to someone in their lives, who had otherwise been termed a life of hopelessness, in my view.

There was a whole industry built around the idea of, I would say, a group of do-gooders feeding off the less fortunate. It's unfortunate to think they were permanently employed to sort of dole out to those people who were unable to help themselves. Our plan focuses on the positive, providing them with the hope and supports they need and the encouragement and motivation to help themselves and to be sure we're there for it.

It's this powerlessness, the permanence of powerlessness that I think is absolutely appalling in the policy level from the opposition and the third party. To me, it's that attitude that you're going to give to them. You can't give someone that sense of powerfulness themselves. The real solution, I believe, was in the plan of getting people who were disabled off the welfare rolls. That's been done, and I believe the real solution is the work for welfare plan. I would say that the best welfare plan-another phrase we use-is a job. Clearly, we've created 725,000 net new jobs.

The fundamental requirement is to have a strong economy and, in that, to be inclusive with people-the reforms in our provincial income tax system to get people below certain income levels totally off the tax rolls and give them more of their money to spend in their way, as their decision, as opposed to some bureaucrat.

For the record, though, I want to focus on the important thing of youth in this whole thing. Many have indicated that youth are the victims in this whole process, and that seems to be one of the caveats of some of the detractors of the plan. Our plan is to encourage youth and create opportunity and hope. I think Dr Bette Stephenson, in her children's Learning Opportunities Task Force, summed it up when she said: "Ontarians can be proud of their government's initiatives to open doors for learning disabled children. The increasingly successful experience at the post-secondary level is just one indication of their value."

The plan that increases annual benefits by $210 for each child under seven in single-parent families-we expect this benefit will assist 77,000 children of low-income families in Ontario. Helping people through direct subsidization in the ways I have just outlined-in partnership, I might add, with the federal government-is the way to build stronger families and communities and to encourage people to take responsibility for their own lives. If you look at our plan and the increased investments in health care and children's services, I believe we're a long way in changing from the previous government's idea of giving a cheque and no hope.

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): It's my pleasure to rise and speak on this resolution brought forward by the member from Guelph-Wellington, what essentially is a resolution that talks about helping people. We can talk about welfare rates in this province being 10% higher than the national average and so on. But in reality, if people are not allowed the opportunity to have a job, they then live in poverty. That is the reality.

I continually hear the Liberals complaining and so on, but the reality is that anyone who remains on welfare will live in some sort of poverty situation. The best we can do is allow people an opportunity to get a job, and that's what workfare does. It allows people who do not have the skills an opportunity to go into an environment to obtain new skills, or perhaps skills they have forgotten because it's been some time since they've been in a workplace.

They continually complain about all these issues; in fact, they had the opportunity to do something about this. But instead when they were in government-the David Peterson government-welfare rates just continued to climb in this province, and that's what we inherited. We believe that people should be allowed the opportunity to work and to be productive members of our communities.

Let's look at some of the savings we've achieved through 500,000 new people getting a job and having dignity. The savings have actually been reinvested in health care, and that is very important. When we took over government, $17 billion was spent on health care, and now we're up $5 billion to $22 billion. That is despite the federal government's continued cuts to transfer payments to Ontario.

The federal Liberals are just no longer a partner in health care in Ontario today. They fund approximately 10% of health care. Is that a true partner? I suspect not. When we look at the definition of partnerships, generally we look at 50-50. That would be a true partner. We certainly ask the federal government not to treat the people of Ontario any differently than they treat people in other provinces and restore that funding to health care.

The member from Toronto Centre-Rosedale spoke about the methadone program. He would certainly know that anyone going through the methadone program is obviously in no condition to work until they've received some treatment. But in order to get into the methadone program, the problem has to be identified. That's what the testing for drugs in our plan is. You cannot get someone treatment-the methadone program is treatment-until you've identified that there's a problem. That is what we're doing.

At some point, we hope that people on methadone programs or other programs become active and productive members in Ontario's economy and get their own dignity back by becoming involved in their communities and by no longer being drug addicts.

I'd like to close by saying that this should be a non-partisan issue, one that is about helping people. If the Liberals want to come to the table and say they truly care about Ontarians, then they should support this resolution because that's exactly what it talks about: caring; giving people their dignity back; future savings that can be redirected into health care. I will have an opportunity to speak on this a little bit later.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Further debate? Response, the member for Guelph-Wellington.

Mrs Elliott: I'm very pleased to hear from my colleagues representing York South-Weston, Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, Toronto Centre-Rosedale, Durham and London-Fanshawe.

We've had various viewpoints on this resolution. I guess the bottom line is that I see our welfare reforms as an opportunity to turn around a system that was clearly not working. The 1.3 million people on welfare in Ontario five years ago was absolutely unacceptable. There is still a lot more to do because there are still only 500,000 people off the welfare rolls, so that leaves us with 800,000 people who need a job and need an opportunity. That's what we are working for in this government. The resolution today is asking for continued support for our changes, for welfare reform.

I thought my colleague from London-Fanshawe put it very succinctly: He said these proposals are about helping people.

I would say to my colleagues across the way that if you're not in support of welfare reform, then are you supporting not giving people opportunities for jobs? If you are against zero tolerance for welfare fraud abuse, does that mean you support welfare abuse? If you are against mandatory treatment for welfare recipients who use drugs, does that mean you support giving welfare to people who are on drugs and are not prepared to do anything about it?

We have said this is a priority for us. We have said from 1995 on that we are going to continue to make these changes, and we are resolute in doing that. The dignity of a job, the opportunity to go to work and be part of a meaningful activity, to be able to support your family, to be able to be in an education program, is absolutely essential, and that is what these reforms are all about.

I said earlier that there's a saying in my riding that is so very important: "By work and by worth we rise." We are going to give those on welfare those opportunities.

The Acting Speaker: The time for this ballot item has now expired. I will put the questions related to ballot items 29 and 30 at 12 noon. Pursuant to standing order 96(e), this House stands recessed until 12 noon.

The House recessed from 1143 to 1200.

CITY OF OTTAWA AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA CITÉ D'OTTAWA

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): M me Boyer has moved second reading of Bill 79. 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 nays have it.

We will now deal with ballot item number 30. The division will take place following that.

WELFARE REFORM

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mrs Elliott has moved ballot item number 30. 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.

We will deal with that following ballot item number 29. Call in the members. It'll be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

CITY OF OTTAWA AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA CITÉ D'OTTAWA

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Will members please take their seats? M me Boyer has moved second reading of Bill 79. All those in favour will please rise and stay standing until your name is called.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Boyer, Claudette

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

McLeod, Lyn

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Ruprecht, Tony

Smitherman, George

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and stay standing until your name is called.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Cunningham, Dianne

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hodgson, Chris

Johns, Helen

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Mazzilli, Frank

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Turnbull, David

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 19; the nays are 37.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

WELFARE REFORM

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now deal with ballot item number 30, private member's notice of motion number 16, moved by Mrs Elliott. All those in favour will please stand and remain standing until your name is called.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Cunningham, Dianne

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hodgson, Chris

Johns, Helen

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Mazzilli, Frank

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Turnbull, David

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Boyer, Claudette

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

McLeod, Lyn

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Ruprecht, Tony

Smitherman, George

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 37; the nays are 19.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

All matters relating to private members' public business have now been completed. This House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1212 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WATER QUALITY

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): Concerned citizens in my riding of St Paul's have been contacting my constituency office to express their condolences to the families of Walkerton devastated by the E coli infection of their water. Constituents have also expressed their horror that this could happen in the province of Ontario.

We know about the $200 dividend for Ontarians, the so-called benefit of the Harris revolution. But now we also know of the latest cost of the revolution: the death of at least seven people, thousands sick and an entire community in ruins.

Who is democratically accountable for this tragedy? These are the facts: This government cut the environment budget by 40%, laid off half of the environmental officials dedicated to protecting water, and downloaded $1 billion worth of responsibility on to municipalities. These facts lay the responsibility for this tragedy at the feet of this government.

It's time for the Premier to exercise leadership, to take responsibility for this tragedy and do everything possible to guarantee the safety of our water. Yet it seems that Mike Harris is busy pointing fingers at his predecessors or at other politicians at the municipal and federal levels.

In contrast, Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals have put forward an action plan to protect drinking water safety pending the outcome of a public inquiry, including the immediate hiring of 100 inspectors and enforcement officers, the testing of every municipal water treatment facility in Ontario within six months and the introduction of tough new clean water legislation.

To date, the government has failed to act on this action plan. I urge the Premier to set aside partisan bickering and finger pointing. Act on the McGuinty action plan, Premier, so that one day all Ontarians can drink our water without having to think twice.

DURHAM SCHOOLS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My growing riding of Durham is home to some of the finest schools in Ontario. Today I would like to highlight two of those exceptional facilities.

Cartwright high school located in Port Perry is celebrating its 75th anniversary this very weekend. Former and current students know that Cartwright is one of the smallest high schools in the province, with a current enrolment of about 200, with the highest achievement. These graduates and future graduates will also tell you that Cartwright may be the smallest but it has the biggest heart in the area.

This weekend's 75th anniversary celebration is evidence of the heart and the sense of the whole community behind it. I must congratulate the organizers: Debbie Bauer, John Beirness, Laura Micklewright, Grant Micklewright, Gord Paisely, Tim Taylor, the principal, Shirley Turner, Aileen Van Camp, Merril Van Camp and John Walhout. This weekend's events include an open house, complete with decade rooms celebrating the history of the school, its teachers and its students, and a barbecue in the evening followed by a dinner and dance.

Not far away is Bowmanville high school. The high school attended the Heritage Festival in Vancouver and came home with a number of important awards. The senior band, under Shawn Hills, won a silver medal, as did the senior jazz band, led by Mike Menheere. Mr Kevin Chocorlan led both the choir and the senior girls to gold medals.

I would like to congratulate all the students, teachers, and the community for making sure that our schools are excellent and the activities, both in school and extracurricular, are always delivered on time, with passion.

ARCHIVAL PRESERVATION

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the county of Elgin for its initiative and commitment to the establishment of a county archives.

I commend them for the recognition of the importance of preserving our written, printed and visual heritage for future generations. An archives plays an important role in ensuring that genealogists, students and historians are able to gain access to important historical information.

We continue to see a decreasing number of municipalities in Ontario, and I fear that important archival materials will be lost as a result. It is incumbent on all of us to express concern and sound the alarm bells. I have personally heard from one municipality in the Hamilton area that cannot find a home for many of its municipal artifacts. The loss of these items should not be allowed to continue.

As municipal amalgamation increases throughout the province and small municipalities are swallowed up by larger ones, this issue becomes ever more pressing. I urge the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Chair of Man agement Board, the ministry responsible for the Archives of Ontario, to work with the Archivist of Ontario and the Archives Association of Ontario to develop a comprehensive municipal archival preservation plan.

Our province has entered its fourth century of local government, and in a time of financial prosperity the commitment must be made to ensure that the Ontario archives and municipalities receive adequate financial support to preserve our heritage. The county of Elgin has taken the lead and it is my hope that others will follow.

AIR CADETS

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): It's beyond ironic, it's disgusting, that at the same time as the Minister of Education is promoting her code of conduct for our students, she is also, through her and her government's Conservative policies, forcing the eviction of the Thorold Flying Dragons Royal Canadian Air Cadet Squadron 128 from their 58-year home at Thorold Secondary School.

For almost 60 years, that school has been able to host the air cadet squadron, producing annually scores upon scores of young women and men who are nurtured by the training, discipline and skills promoted in the air cadets. As a result of this government's policies-in fact, school board chair Don Reilly puts it this way: "The ministry has reduced payments for school maintenance and in doing so took away our ability to give the school for free to the air cadets."

Back in 1986, the air cadets paid for their own renovations. Can another home be found? Probably, but there's a historic link. In fact, this school is an ideal location, with its gymnasium for use as an indoor square and parade ground and for the asphalt outside.

Instead of bashing students, bashing young people, bashing teachers, it's about time this minister did something positive. I want her to intervene and assure the young people and their families, the members of the air cadet squadron, their leadership and the many volunteers who work with them that they will continue to have a home at Thorold Secondary School free of charge.

Schools belong to the community. Schools ought to be utilized by the community. We don't need codes of conduct. We need support for groups like these air cadets.

PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I rise in the House today to congratulate the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities on taking courageous and ambitious steps to help post-secondary students in my riding. Recently, Minister Cunningham announced the province's intentions to give private post-secondary institutions degree-granting status. This has come as welcome news for students in my riding.

Last week I had the opportunity to introduce a petition in the Legislature signed by over 700 students of the DeVry Institute, a great many of those students at the Scarborough campus. The petition was supportive of the minister's plans and called for its speedy implementation.

Currently, DeVry students at the Scarborough and Mississauga campuses must spend the final four months of their studies at a sister campus in Calgary or in southern California. This government's plans mean that those students will be able to obtain a degree at home in Ontario. Keeping these students in the province is a small step in addressing the growing brain drain problem.

By allowing private post-secondary institutions to grant degrees, this government is providing the young people of this province with important choice in their education.

There are many reasons why members should support the proposals coming from Minister Cunningham. First and foremost is that her plans are good for the young people of Ontario.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): The Minister of Health finally made an announcement about hospital funding yesterday-three months into the hospitals' fiscal year. Unfortunately, she didn't give hospitals the money to pay the bills for the rest of the year, so once again the hospitals are hoping there's going to be more money somewhere down the road.

In the meantime, hospitals that are trying to cope with deficits are wondering what they have to do today. Half of the province's hospitals were facing deficits last year and that was before another $300 million in wage increases was figured in. The government is offering only $329 million in what they call new money; in fact, all but $100 million of that was already in last year's budget. So the deficits that many hospitals were facing last year are going to be there again this year.

Windsor hospitals need $18 million more. Hamilton Health Sciences Centre is still at least $20 million short of what it needs. Sunnybrook hospital says that it will have to close operating rooms and acute care beds to eliminate a $23-million deficit. The Ottawa Hospital is facing a $39-million deficit; they received $15 million yesterday. Little Atikokan Hospital found that most of the money they received had actually been given to them last December and now they're back to looking at a deficit again this year.

The government is supposed to bring in a new hospital funding formula. They need about $100 million to start implementing it. Some hospitals will benefit; others won't.

The cuts can't be delayed much longer in the hopes of more money coming. The hospitals need clear answers now. Down payments and vague promises are not enough to ensure that we'll have access to hospital care where and when it's needed.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): On behalf of the members of this Legislature, I'd like to show appreciation for our legislative pages.

Pages are grade 7 and 8 students who have been granted a leave of absence from school while working in the legislative chamber for a term of four to six weeks.

The duties of the pages vary. They can be seen carrying messages to and from the MPPs, meeting with politicians and officials, learning how laws are made and how our great province is governed.

To apply to the page program, students must maintain a level 4 scholastic achievement and be actively involved in a variety of co-instructional activities, both in and outside of school.

One of our current pages, Alexandra Stephenson, comes from my riding of Peterborough. I've had the opportunity to meet with Alexandra, and her parents are in the gallery. Welcome. It's very uplifting to meet young people with qualities like Alexandra's.

I know we're all very proud of each and every one of these young people. Please join me in thanking the pages for their continued service.

HIGHWAY ACCIDENT

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): It is indeed unfortunate and in a solemn moment that I rise in the House today to share our heartfelt thoughts on the tragic news of an accident that occurred on a stretch of Highway 401 near Chatham. Again we have a stark and chilly reminder of the reality that is faced day to day by our police officers across the province of Ontario.

That is why I want to express publicly again my total and complete respect, understanding, pride and support to the police officers, support staff and administration of the police services of the county of Brant and Brantford when I pay respect to the police officers serving the Chatham-Kent OPP.

To Constable Patti Pask and her family, Constable Brad Sakalo and his family, and especially Sergeant Mary Eve and her family, I offer heartfelt prayers and thoughts for a speedy recovery.

A total of six people were taken to hospital. To all the injured in this accident, on behalf of all of us, I offer our heartfelt prayers for a speedy recovery.

To the police officers doing their duty, please be assured that we honour you and thank you for a job well done.

Again, our prayers and thoughts are with the injured and their families at this time, and I know I speak for all members on behalf of the House. We do recognize and understand that there are few jobs in the public service, and even in the private service, where people go to work day to day putting their lives on the line. For this, we thank you and we pray for you.

WOMEN OF DISTINCTION AWARDS

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): It was my privilege and pleasure to attend the recent Women of Distinction Awards ceremony in Toronto. This remarkable event, chaired by Joann Chechalk, who is president of the board of directors of the YWCA of Toronto, celebrates and honours women who have made an outstanding contribution in their field.

Rahima Nenshi, one of my constituents in Thornhill, was the recipient of this year's Young Woman of Distinction Award. She is currently in her first year pursuing a combined degree in international studies and general science at Huron College at the University of Western Ontario. She has maintained an 85% average in her first year of post-secondary study and is a deserving recipient of the Huron College National Scholarship. Her future goal is to attend medical school and to pursue a career in international medical relief.

While pursuing her post-secondary studies, Rahima was elected as the first-year representative of the Ismaili Students Association and was actively involved on the Huron College social issues committee. Rahima has also taken

part in Frontier College's nationwide volunteer literacy program.

During high school Rahima volunteered at the day care centre, tutored grade 3 and 4 students and organized student volunteering both at the Daily Bread Food Bank and at York Central Hospital in Thornhill. Rahima was actively involved in the youth wing of the Rotary Club of Canada and in the provincial student body OSSSA. I would like to congratulate Rahima for her commitment to helping others, particularly young children. She is an inspiration to all of us.

At this time I would like to recognize Rahima Nenshi and Joann Chechalk, president of the board of directors of the YWCA, in the east gallery.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Also with us today in the Speaker's gallery are the 1999-2000 Ontario legislative interns. With us today we have Emily Bain, Jennifer Harrington, Stephanie Lu, Kevin Machida, Brandy Miller, Chris Morley, Andrew Owen and Priya Suagh. Would all the members please join in welcoming our interns.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I beg leave to present a report on the Andersen Consulting contract from the standing committee on public accounts and move the adoption of its recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Gerretsen: First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the committee members for the unanimous report that has resulted from our hearings that took place over two days last December. Specifically, I'd like to thank co-Chair John Cleary, John Hastings, Bart Maves, Marilyn Mushinski, Shelley Martel, Julia Munro and Richard Patten for coming up with the unanimous report that contains eight unanimous recommendations. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Erik Peters, our Provincial Auditor, and his staff, and the clerks of the committee, Donna Bryce and Douglas Arnott, as well as the research officer, Ray McLellan.

The recommendations speak for themselves, but if I could just highlight one, it specifically states that "No further payment should be made to Andersen Consulting until the primary objective of implementing new technology is met and overall benefits exceed costs."

I am pleased to present this report and move that the debate now be adjourned.

The Speaker: Mr Gerretsen moves the adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I beg leave to present a report of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 72,

An Act to pay a dividend to Ontario taxpayers, cut taxes, create jobs and implement the Budget / Projet de loi 72, Loi visant à verser un dividende aux contribuables de l'Ontario, à réduire les impôts, à créer des emplois et à mettre en oeuvre le budget.

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

Pursuant to the order of the House dated Tuesday, May 15, 2000, the bill is ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROFESSIONAL GEOSCIENTISTS ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LES GÉOSCIENTIFIQUES PROFESSIONNELS

Mr Hudak moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 86,

An Act to establish the Association of Professional Geoscientists of Ontario / Projet de loi 86, Loi visant à établir l'Ordre des géoscientifiques professionnels de l'Ontario.

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

Does the minister have a short statement?

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I'll defer my statement to ministers' statements, Mr Speaker.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

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

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

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that, notwithstanding standing order 96(g), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item 32.

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ENERGY COMPETITION

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): The Energy Competition Act was passed by this Legislature more than two years ago in order to ensure Ontarians a safe, reliable supply of electricity at the lowest possible cost. Like a three-legged stool, there are three elements that must work together to keep costs down. The first is competition in generation. Every jurisdiction in the world that has introduced competition has seen savings in generation of from 5% to 40%. The second leg of the savings stool is debt reduction. Thirdly, there must be fair and stable distribution rates.

As a government, we've moved to take care of the first two. We've introduced competition in generation. This is spelled out in a far-reaching plan that requires Hydro's successor company, Ontario Power Generation, to reduce its current dominant position in the generation market to 35% over the next 10 years. We've also put a plan in place to reduce and eliminate Ontario Hydro's legacy of debt and liabilities.

But for the third, important leg of the stool we must look to our partners: Ontario's municipalities and their local electric utilities. Local distribution is the regulated, monopoly side of the electricity business. It's much like the wires side of the telephone business. Bell Canada owns the wires but any long-distance competitor can use those wires in exchange for a fair rate, regulated by the CRTC. By the same token, municipalities, which own the electricity wires, must deliver electricity to customers at fair and reasonable rates.

There is only one wire. Customers have no choice but to use the municipal utility's wires. That's why local distribution rates are subject to the review and approval of the Ontario Energy Board under our new act, and that is why today I have directed the Ontario Energy Board to make customer protection its first priority when deciding rate applications before them. I have further directed the OEB to ask municipalities to justify the rate applications before they are approved.

More than two years ago, when we were drafting the Energy Competition Act, the Municipal Electrical Association and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario urged the government not to force amalgamations and mergers in the electricity distribution sector. At that time, we were told that if we gave them the tools and incentives, municipalities would do the right thing for customers and move to rationalize the distribution systems, find efficiencies and ensure the lowest possible price.

Our legislation gave municipalities the tools they requested. The act clarified for the first time that municipalities own their electricity utilities. Local municipal councils are the shareholders. We expected municipalities to act responsibly. Some of them have. Communities like Whitby and Thunder Bay have announced they will not be seeking rate increases. Our own company, Hydro One, has promised no increase, not only for existing customers but also for customers of the small utilities it is seeking to purchase.

But elsewhere the story has been very much different. Unfortunately, some municipalities have followed the ill-conceived advice of consultants and have filed with the Ontario Energy Board for significant increases in local distribution rates. There is no reason for distribution rates to go up in the competitive market. There are more than 250 municipal electric utilities in Ontario. That's more than 10 times the rest of Canada combined. They are monopoly businesses that have been bought and paid for by electricity customers. Between them, they have more than a billion dollars in cash and investments in the bank. That's pretty good for a so-called non-profit sector.

Customers have already put more than enough money into the electricity system to shield against any short-term transitional and regulatory costs brought on by electricity restructuring. As I have said many times, municipalities must earn their rate of return by squeezing efficiencies in their operations. Our own company, Hydro One, has done this. It conducted an employee pension buyout to finance its rate of return. I have asked municipalities to do the same, to find ways of becoming more efficient. I have urged them to put customers first. We believe in the benefits of competition, but customers must be protected in a competitive market.

Our government did not get into electricity competition to see prices increase, especially on the monopoly, regulated side of the business. That is why I have given direction to the Ontario Energy Board, and it is why I am informing the House today that the government is preparing legislation that, if passed, would ensure municipal politicians put electricity customers first.

In conclusion, I hope and I expect that all members of this House will also want to put customers first and will support this bill.

REGULATION OF GEOSCIENTISTS

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Today I have great pleasure in introducing into this House legislation to govern the geoscience profession in Ontario. This legislation, to be known as the Professional Geoscientists Act, will establish the Association of Professional Geoscientists of Ontario as the governing body for professional geoscientists. It will empower the association to establish standards of professional practice for persons who wish to be recognized as geoscientists.

The bill is being introduced three months after I first indicated my intention to address this issue at the mining industry's Mining Millennium 2000 held in March in Toronto. That was followed by an intensive period of public consultations. These consultations were distinguished by the thoughtful and outstanding contributions of all those interested in the issue. It is that level of public participation that has enabled me to bring forward this legislation today.

I must commend all the participants for their input and add a special word of thanks to my parliamentary assistant, Jerry Ouellette, who so diligently led the consultation process across the province, from corner to corner in the province of Ontario. Great work, Jerry.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Hudak: I'm getting heckled by the minister, Mr Speaker.

I'd also like to thank the opposition, particularly Michael Brown, the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, and Shelley Martel , the member for Nickel Belt, for their letters of support on this initiative. I also want to thank the Chair of Management Board, the member for Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, Chris Hodgson, who as my predecessor as Minister of Northern Development and Mines initiated this process that has led to the introduction of the bill today.

As well, let me acknowledge the presence in the gallery of some key stakeholders whose expertise and assistance have contributed greatly to the drafting of this legislation. Allow me to welcome John Bowlby, vice-president of the Association of Geoscientists of Ontario; Andy Cooper, secretary treasurer of the Association of Geoscientists; Neil Westoll, the chair of the advisory committee of the AGO; and Maureen Jensen, director of mining services, the Toronto Stock Exchange. Welcome and thank you for being with us here today.

As I've told this House on previous occasions, Ontario's mining sector contributes some $5 billion an nually to the province's economy and sustains hundreds of communities across the province, particularly in northern Ontario. My ministry is therefore committed to ensuring that Ontario continues to be one of the most attractive jurisdictions for mining investment in this world. In fact, we strive to be the best. This bill, coupled with our past mining initiatives and those announced in last May's provincial budget, including record tax cuts to the mining industry, puts us well on our way to claiming this lofty status.

This proposed legislation responds to the February 1999 recommendations of the Mining Standards Task Force, a joint committee of the Ontario Securities Commission and the Toronto Stock Exchange. It intends to bring Ontario's geoscientists under a system of licensure that would set out professional standards. These would allow geoscientists to become qualified persons who would review and approve all mineral exploration results to be published and protect the public against unskilled or unethical actions. This bill will put Ontario in a position to comply fully with rules that are expected to be adopted by securities regulators to strengthen quality and integrity in public disclosure.

This proposed legislation supports economic growth and job creation. It tells the world that Ontario is open for business, that Ontario is ready and able to participate successfully in the global market and that Ontario will continue to be regarded as the mining financing capital of the world.

The legislation will ensure that geoscientists working in environmental fields possess a high level of professionalism. All sectors of the province are affected by the actions of geoscientists through their contributions to mapping groundwater, siting landfills or mapping hazardous land. The standards of accountability we are proposing are fundamental to protecting the public interest and will serve as a model for other jurisdictions.

This bill enhances Ontario's international competitiveness by showcasing the province's excellence in geoscience, while supporting the development and professionalism of the geoscience community. This proposed legislation provides support for Ontario's geoscientists and geoscience-based companies to compete in international markets.

I hope I can count on the support of all parties in the Legislature to bring this legislation forward and ensure its passage through to enactment.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Briefly, I would just like to reply to the statement from the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and indicate our support for this measure and our appreciation for the help of the parliamentary assistant and staff of the ministry in providing us with a briefing on this measure.

It will be helpful to juniors, to prospectors, to investors and the investment community. We are in support, and I thank you for that.

ENERGY COMPETITION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I'm going to respond on behalf of the official opposition to the Minister of Energy's statement today about electricity rates. I really appreciate the opportunity, as one member of this Legislature, to raise and focus attention on the question of electricity rates, because make no mistake about it, my friends, regardless of which party you belong to, and to the audience out there, electricity rates in the province are going to go up and they're going to go up sharply, for both residential and industrial and commercial consumers.

While the government of Ontario is not entirely responsible for these rate increases, the electricity policy pursued by the Harris government is substantially responsible for the sharply increased electricity rates that all consumers of electricity are going to experience over the next six to 18 months.

What we have today from Jim Wilson, Minister of Energy, is, incredibly, yet more of the Harris disease, namely, blame the municipalities: Blame, blame, blame; accept no responsibility. That's what we've got today. We've just heard the Minister of Energy stand in his place and blame the municipal utilities when the Minister of Energy himself knows that the electricity policy which he brought and piloted through this Legislature gamed the rules against the municipal utilities in favour of Ontario Hydro.

He hasn't said today or he hasn't said at any other time that in fact one of the things going on out in the marketplace today is that his company, Hydro One, is out there in the Ottawa Valley and elsewhere in the province paying premium prices buying up utilities. Professor Joe Kushner, over at Brock University, has done some very good work on this very point. I repeat: Jim Wilson and Mike Harris's company, Hydro One, is up in places like the Ottawa Valley and in central and western Ontario paying premium prices to buy up municipal utilities.

Should there be a restructuring? Absolutely, and in southern Ontario most of that restructuring should be in favour of fewer, larger MEUs. But that's not what we're getting. We're getting a bigger, stronger Ontario Hydro, and that's only possible because the rules that were written by the Harris government made it possible for Ontario Hydro Retail to get bigger, and that's precisely what Mr Osborne is doing.

But it's more than that. Just in the last few days, my colleagues Mrs McLeod, Mr Gravelle and Mr Crozier, to name but three, have come to me with cases in their own constituencies, and I have several of my own and I know my colleagues opposite on the government bench have as well. Direct customers of Ontario Hydro are being told by Ontario Hydro Generation: "Get ready. Your rates are going to go up anywhere from 15% to 25% very shortly after the market opens." That has nothing to do with the MEUs. That has nothing to do with Toronto Hydro or Pembroke Hydro or Sarnia Hydro.

I don't want to embarrass some of the big companies, but we know who they are. I'll be quite frank, I had Inco in yesterday and they are very worried, as is Falconbridge, as are a number of these resource-extractors in northern Ontario. Let me repeat: They are being told, as direct customers of Ontario Hydro, that their rates are going to go up anywhere between 15%, 20% and 25%, and that has nothing to do with the MEUs.

I will be the first one to say this is a difficult, complicated policy, and all of us have a responsibility. I accept what the government says about the past. But I tell you, I never thought, given what this government said it was about, which was competition in generation-that's 70% of your hydro bill. We're not getting that, and we're not getting it because Harris and Farlinger rejected the advice of people like Donald Macdonald and Darcy McKeough. Incredibly, the Harris government has become a kind of parlour poodle for the new, bigger, stronger, more expansive, more imperial Ontario Hydro.

Because the Harris government has sold out to a bigger, stronger Ontario Hydro and because we're not going to get competition in generation, everybody's electricity rates, both residential-farm and industrial-commercial, are going to go up. They're going to go up sharply and soon, to the detriment of the social and economic well-being of this Ontario of ours.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I very much want to respond to the Minister of Energy. It was the Minister of Energy, when he introduced this legislation, who said to all of us, "Rates are going to go down." On this side of the House, we said, "All you need to do is look at the so-called deregulated market in the United States, where their costs of energy are higher than ours, and anyone can figure out that rates are going to go up." And what do we have today?

We have the Minister of Energy coming back a year and a half later and saying, "Oops, rates are going to go up." But he's got to find someone to blame. This government can't admit that it got it all screwed up again. You've got to find someone to blame. Isn't it amazing? The government said a year and a half ago, "Deregulation is the answer." Today we have the Minister of Energy in here saying, "Oops, I have to re-regulate."

Minister, you're not fooling anyone. Your attempt to blame the municipalities is like your Premier's attempt to blame municipalities. It is shallow, it is cynical and the facts don't bear it out. Let's be clear about where this government is going with Hydro. The legislation they brought into this House and passed ostensibly tilts the scales in favour of their corporate friends who are now running Ontario Hydro. It puts municipal utilities in a position where they are being steamrollered to sell to their corporate friends who are going to run the old Ontario Hydro.

Some of the municipalities are thinking: "You know, we kind of like to look after our community. Also, this is a very valuable asset. We don't want to sell it to Mike Harris's corporate friends cheap. We'd like to make sure our people, our taxpayers get something out of it." To do that under your rules, they virtually have to raise their rates, according to your formula. That's what they're doing. They're only behaving according to your formula set out in the legislation. Your legislation says they need to earn a market rate of return, so that's what they're doing.

But now, when they behave as your legislation tells them to, you're going to stomp all over them and blame them. This minister is more incompetent than the Minister of the Environment. That much is clear.

I want to say very directly to all of the people across Ontario that everybody's power rates are going to go up. In my community, a representative of a paper mill, which has run successfully for almost 100 years, came into my office and said as a result of this government's privatization and so-called deregulation they are looking at power rate increases of 25% to 30%. They are looking at the potential of having to close down during certain months of the year because of the high cost of power.

I want to tell people who have large, industrial complexes in their community, like paper mills, pulp mills, steel mills and nickel mines, that this is something which is going to hit every community, and there's a reason.

The minister says once the market is privatized, this is going to work. Folks, the people who are coming into Ontario to buy up chunks of our hydro-generating capacity are overwhelmingly American companies. Do you think all these hydro-generating stations are going to sell in Ontario for a cheap price or they're going to sell into Chicago for a bigger price, into Detroit for a bigger price or into New York for a bigger price? I have to tell you these corporations aren't in business to lower rates.

They're in business to achieve the highest rate of return, and they will achieve the highest rate of return by buying up power stations in Ontario and selling the power in Chicago for a bigger price, selling the power in New York for a bigger price or selling the power in Detroit for a bigger price. If citizens in Ontario want to buy the power that is being generated here, we will have to pay a higher price.

That is the dirty little secret of this government in terms of energy policy. The cost of power, the price of power to people all across Ontario, is not going to go down, it's going to go up. Trying to blame municipalities, as you are today, is the same shallow, disgusting, cynical game that we saw the Premier engage in earlier this week, and it's going to be exposed in this situation exactly as it was exposed with the Premier in the whole issue around Walkerton.

ADRIAN FILLMORE

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am seeking unanimous consent for a moment of silence in honour of Adrian Fillmore, a constituent of Toronto Centre-Rosedale. Mr Fillmore was a man who made his home in a bus shelter at the corner of Bay and Wellesley, adjacent to the Mowat Block. His vicious murder on Monday night has been a traumatic event for many in the Queen's Park government precinct. Mr Fillmore was well known to many members of this Legislature and to thousands of Ontario public servants with whom he shared that corner.

Mr Fillmore's murder is regrettably only one occurrence of many that have ravaged our city's vulnerable homeless community recently. In addition to wishing our police service Godspeed in bringing his murderer to justice, I ask for unanimous consent for a moment of silence in honour of the life of Adrian Fillmore.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed. Would all of our friends in the galleries join us for a moment of silence.

The House observed a moment's silence.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of the Environment and it's about the Walkerton water tragedy. A week ago Mike Harris said, "There's not a shred of evidence that there isn't enough staff, nor a shred of evidence that the procedures and the regulations, if they were complied with, would not have prevented this tragedy." There is much more, in fact, than a mere shred of evidence; there is a mountain of evidence. It's coming in day after day after day, and it is all damning.

I have in my hand today a copy of a document prepared inside your ministry by the water policy branch. It is dated January 2000. This document makes it perfectly clear that as a result of the decisions and actions that have taken place affecting the Ministry of the Environment here in Ontario, the kind of thing that happened at Walkerton was about to happen.

Tell us, Minister, why did you not only ignore the advice of the auditor and the Environmental Commissioner but now a document prepared by your own staff warning you that your negligence was about to get our province, our people, into serious trouble?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): Every change that we've made and every policy that we have approved we felt has always been in the best interests of the citizens and taxpayers of Ontario. Neither I nor the Premier have attempted to deny or to lay blame in this case at all. We've tried to answer questions openly and we've tried to answer those questions to the best of our ability. I know this effort has been attributed by some as an attempt to lay blame. This has never been our intent, and I apologize if anyone has taken it that way.

I recognize that the member opposite has questions about this issue, and so do I. That's why there's an inquiry and three other investigations getting to the bottom of what happened in Walkerton. That's why everything, including the operations and procedures of the Ministry of the Environment, is on the table to be examined by the public inquiry and the three other investigations.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, you did not answer the question. The question is, why did you ignore your staff? Why did you ignore all of those warnings that were placed under your nose and the Premier's nose? You act now as if this suddenly came from out of nowhere and you had no warning whatsoever of any kind at any time.

The fact of the matter is you had many, many warnings. In January 2000 this was placed before your ministry and your Premier. Inside this document your ministry staff make it perfectly clear that no procedures were in place to make certain that the medical officer of health was informed if deadly bacteria were found inside water. That was the warning that was given in January 2000. That's exactly what happened at Walkerton. That's what took place there. You didn't heed this warning and people died.

Tell us now again-because you didn't the first time-answer the question: Why did you refuse to heed this warning?

Hon Mr Newman: There are many questions over the unfortunate circumstances at Walkerton. That's why there is the public inquiry and there are three other investigations taking place, to ensure that we get to the bottom of this matter so that all of us in Ontario have answers, so that the people in Walkerton have answers to their questions. And that's why everything, including the operations and procedures of the Ministry of the Environment, is on the table to be looked at by the public inquiry and also by the other three investigations that are underway.

As a government we accept our responsibility and I give you this commitment: We want to do everything possible to get to the bottom of this terrible tragedy so that what happened at Walkerton never again happens in our province.

Mr McGuinty: The sad and terrifying prospect here is that what happened in Walkerton is going to happen again, because not only have you ignored warnings in the past but you are ignoring them today.

Minister, do you know what else this document prepared by your own ministry officials says? It says that a number of smaller municipalities are not complying with the minimum monitoring and reporting requirements. Cost was cited by these municipalities as the main reason for non-compliance.

Mike Harris, on the other hand, said, and I quote: "Any downloading that took place on the costs of water testing [was] very minor. There has not been any significant call from municipalities for them to pay for the testing."

Your own officials told you back in January 2000 that not only were smaller municipalities not complying with monitoring and testing requirements, but that they didn't do so because they didn't have the money to do so. They told you this back in January 2000.

Why, Minister, in addition to ignoring warnings from the Provincial Auditor and the Environmental Commissioner, did you ignore the warnings from those who are in your employ, people who work inside your ministry, people who placed a document under your nose and said: "Watch out. We're going to be in trouble here in Ontario. People are going to die"? Why did you ignore all of that?

Hon Mr Newman: There are many questions with respect to the tragic events at Walkerton. That's why there is a public inquiry, and that's why there are three other investigations, including the OPP's investigation. There is also the coroner's inquest. There's the investigation through the Ministry of the Environment's investigations and enforcement branch, looking at all possible answers in this tragic situation in Walkerton.

And that's why the operations and procedures of the Ministry of the Environment are on the table in all of these investigations, because we want to get to the bottom of it so that the people of Walkerton and the people of Ontario have the answers they need so that something like this never, ever happens again in our province.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, here's a document produced in January 2000 by ministry officials. It warns that your negligence is going to cause the kind of disaster that took place at Walkerton. Why did you ignore your officials? The people of Ontario want to know. Forget the message track for a minute. Why did you ignore your own officials who stepped to the fore and said that your negligence, what you had done to the ministry in terms of cuts and reducing inspections and downloading testing, was having a horrific effect on their ability to do their job?

They warned that municipalities, but especially smaller municipalities in Ontario, weren't able to keep up with their responsibilities because they couldn't afford to do so.

Minister, again, why did you ignore that blatant warning?

Hon Mr Newman: The member opposite makes the point that the people of Ontario want to know, and he's absolutely right. They do want to know. So do I want to know. So do all members in this House, as do the people of Ontario. They want to know what happened in Walkerton, and that's why there is an inquiry under way. There are three other investigations-the OPP's investigation, the coroner's investigation, and the Ministry of the Environment's investigation-looking at all aspects of what happened in Walkerton so we can get to the bottom of it.

As a government, we've accepted our responsibility and we want to get to the bottom of this tragedy. We want to ensure that something like this never, ever happens again in Ontario.

Mr McGuinty: Can you tell us, Minister, exactly how the minister responded when he was made aware of this memo, produced in January 2000 by his own officials, warning of the dire consequences as a result of cuts and downloading? Can you tell us exactly what happened at that time?

Hon Mr Newman: I can tell you that we take the protection of the environment in this province very seriously. Whether it's the protection of the water for the people of Ontario, whether it's the protection of the air for the people of Ontario, or whether it's the land protection, we take this very seriously. That's why in this case here in Walkerton there is a public inquiry that will be underway and other investigations, so we can get to the bottom of the tragic circumstances in Walkerton.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, you don't get it. There are hundreds of Walkertons waiting to happen today in Ontario. This document warns that smaller municipalities aren't able to live up to their responsibilities when it comes to testing and monitoring water. It says they can't do that for one important reason: They can't cope with the additional costs