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

September 25, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Sept-25 (PDF)

L078 - Mon 25 Sep 2000 / Lun 25 sep 2000

INTRODUCTION OF MEMBER FOR ANCASTER-DUNDAS-FLAMBOROUGH-ALDERSHOT

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

QUEEN MOTHER

LONG-TERM CARE

ACTIVITIES IN NORTHUMBERLAND

CANCER CARE

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

GRIMSBY CENOTAPH

VICTORIAN ORDER OF NURSES

PALERMO ATHLETICS

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

ELECTORAL DISTRICTS

SPECIAL REPORT, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO

QUEEN MOTHER

ANNUAL REPORT, CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

SPEAKER'S RULING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

VICTIMS' BILL OF RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA CHARTE DES DROITS DES VICTIMES D'ACTES CRIMINELS

OAK RIDGES MORAINE CONSERVATION, PROTECTION AND PROMOTION ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 200 SUR LA PRÉSERVATION, LA PROTECTION ET LA PROMOTION DE LA MORAINE D'OAK RIDGES

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

LOI SUR L'ADOPTION INTERNATIONALE

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

ORAL QUESTIONS

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

WASTE DISPOSAL

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT STAFF

VISITOR

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

BREAST CANCER

CROP INSURANCE

CANCER CARE

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT STAFF

PREMIER'S RESEARCH EXCELLENCE AWARDS

PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

SAFE DRINKING WATER LEGISLATION

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

CHILD POVERTY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

LOI SUR LA COLLECTION MCMICHAEL D'ART CANADIEN

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

INTRODUCTION OF MEMBER FOR ANCASTER-DUNDAS-FLAMBOROUGH-ALDERSHOT

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that the Clerk has received from the chief election officer and laid upon the table a certificate of the by-election in the electoral district of Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): I have a letter addressed to:

"Mr Claude L. DesRosiers

"Clerk of the Legislative Assembly

"Room 104, Legislative Building

"Queen's Park

"Toronto, Ontario

"M7A 1A2."

It reads as follows:

"Dear Mr DesRosiers:

"A writ of election dated the 4th day of August 2000 was issued by the Honourable Lieutenant Governor of the province of Ontario and was addressed to Jean Schemmer, returning officer for the electoral district of Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot, for the election of a member to represent the said electoral district of Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot in the Legislative Assembly of this province in the room of Toni Skarica, who since his election as representative of the said electoral district of Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot has resigned his seat.

This is to certify that, a poll having been granted and held in Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot on the 7th day of September 2000, Ted McMeekin has been returned as duly elected as appears by the return of the said writ of election dated the 15th day of September 2000, which is now lodged of record in my office.

"Warren R. Bailie

"Chief election officer

"Toronto, September 15, 2000."

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, I have the honour to present to you, and to the House, Ted McMeekin, member-elect for the electoral district of Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot, who has taken the oath and signed the roll and now claims the right to take his seat.

The Speaker: Let the member take his seat.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): Speaker, I ask you, what has changed since June 1995? When I was first elected, my office was besieged with calls about people who couldn't access doctors and couldn't access specialists. Fast-forward to the summer of 2000, and my office was besieged with calls from people who can't access doctors or specialists.

A case in point is Eva, who is 85 years old and suffering from degenerative discs in her spine. She was taken by her daughter to her specialist, from a spring appointment with her family doctor to a fall appointment with a neurosurgeon, except when the daughter, Nancy, took her mother to the specialist, she was there in the wrong year. She was meant to go next year, in September of the year 2001. That is the status of doctors and specialists where I come from.

Nothing has changed after five and a half years of Tory rule in Ontario. Promise after promise, and nothing has changed. Never mind Eva, who may not make it outside of a wheelchair by next year just in seeing a specialist, what are you going to do for the countless other people who deal with this on an ongoing basis? I ask this House to put this issue as a priority, especially for the people like Eva, who live in my riding.

QUEEN MOTHER

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): Welcome back, Mr Speaker.

On August 4 this year, Canadians joined the rest of the Commonwealth and the world in wishing a happy 100th birthday to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother.

Throughout her entire life the Queen Mother has always been the epitome of leadership, service and devotion to duty. Hers was a hurried childhood, as the First World War began on her 14th birthday.

As Queen and wife of King George VI, she arrived with her husband in this very chamber in 1939, where the King sat in the Speaker's chair as sovereign of Canada and Ontario, and awarded honours to deserving Ontarians on the eve of the Second World War.

Canadians have always loved and cherished the Queen Mother, and Her Majesty has never kept her special affection for Canada a secret either. Her vision, deter mination and confidence are the qualities by which she has captured hearts throughout the world.

On August 4, Her Honour, the Honourable Hilary Weston, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, and the Honourable Gary Carr, Speaker of the Ontario Parliament, held a great birthday party in honour of the Queen Mother here on the grounds of the legislative precinct. I want to take this opportunity to publicly thank them both for organizing so great a tribute to so great a lady.

On behalf of all my colleagues in the Legislative Assembly, I too wish to add my voice to those of so many in saying, "Happy birthday, Your Majesty, and many happy returns for many, many more years to come."

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): In 1998 this government promised that 144 long-term-care beds would be allocated to Frontenac, Lennox and Addington. Subsequently, Fairmount Home, a not-for-profit facility, applied for some of the beds, but all 96 from the first round were awarded to private facilities.

Just a couple of weeks ago, I met with the Deputy Minister of Health, along with Bill MacDonald, who is the chair of the Frontenac Management Board, with regard to the lack of affordable long-term-care beds. During this meeting we were assured that these concerns would be taken into account when the next rounds of beds were allocated.

Our concerns will not be addressed, because last week the government announced its intention to reallocate the remaining 48 beds. Eighteen per cent of the population of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington is over the age of 65, one of the highest senior populations in the province. Many live on fixed incomes and need access to affordable long-term care. However, not a single not-for-profit bed has been allocated to my riding.

My leader, Dalton McGuinty, highlighted many times a litany of broken promises by this government. Now we add another to the list. Frontenac county was promised long-term-care beds. On behalf of my constituents, I'm asking this government to keep its promise.

ACTIVITIES IN NORTHUMBERLAND

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Over the weekend I ate one of the best-tasting apples I've ever had. I'm sure the others who braved the wet weather and attended this year's Applefest in Brighton will agree that Northumberland has some of the best apples in Ontario.

This past weekend we enjoyed Applefest in Brighton and the Great Farini festival in Port Hope, two of the wonderful events that take place every year in my riding. Northumberland provided an opportunity to taste and experience Ontario agriculture at several fairs and farmers' markets. You could enjoy outdoor concerts in Brighton's Memorial Park or the Scottish/Irish Festival in Quinte West.

You could visit Iron Chief Charlie or the cardboard boat races in Campbellford, listen to A Barnful of Broadway at the Westben Arts Festival Theatre, go to the rodeo at the Warkworth Western Weekend, tour area farms during Rural Rambles, check out classic cars in Cobourg's land yacht regatta, and even tell your friends to go "Take a Hike" in Presqu'ile Provincial Park.

These festivals could only happen with the hard work and dedication of volunteers. Volunteerism is a major aspect of rural life. Northumberland is a leader, county-wide, in volunteerism.

A big thank you and a salute to those many volunteers who dedicate their time and effort to their community, because without them our rural communities would not be the fun and exciting places that many Ontarians like to visit and many others call home.

CANCER CARE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): It's been a very long, exhausting and frustrating summer for cancer patients living in northern Ontario. While Mike Harris spent the summer months improving his golf swing and baiting his lures, cancer patient Janice Skinner, who's in the gallery today, spent her summer fighting for both her health and for justice. In fact, Janice Skinner is in Toronto today, paying her own travel and accommodation in order for her to get cancer treatment.

Gerry Lougheed Jr, former chair of Cancer Care Ontario northeast, and Janice and René Boucher, who formed Ontarians Seeking Equal Cancer Care, continue to fight this government over its unjust, discriminatory policy that believes that cancer patients from northern Ontario should not receive the same amount of money as those in southern Ontario.

Although their pleas have fallen on Mike Harris's deaf ears, voters from across Ontario recognize the injustice and have voiced their concern. During the month of August, Maureen Shaw, a Mississauga high school teacher, cycled her way across Ontario collecting signatures for OSECC's petition, demanding that the Mike Harris government move immediately to right this wrong. Gerry Lougheed Jr, along with people like Maureen Shaw and Janice Skinner, have collected over 51,000 signatures, and the number grows daily.

Beginning today, Gerry, Maureen, Janice and the 51,000 other Ontarians who believe this government believes in health care apartheid will have their petitions entered daily, 100 at a time, until you fix the problem.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): The protection of the Oak Ridges moraine continues to be a very important public issue. That's why New Democrats believe that full public hearings on our Bill 71,

An Act to freeze development on the Oak Ridges Moraine and to amend the Planning Act to increase and strengthen the protection of natural areas across Ontario, must occur as soon as possible.

On June 1 this bill was debated and passed second reading. It was referred to the general government committee. The government also referred Bill 101 to the same committee this summer, and public hearings were held on that instead. But clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 101 will soon be complete. I am therefore calling on the Chair of the committee, Steve Gilchrist, and all committee members to support a recommendation to hold public hearings on Bill 71 next.

Bill 71 does two important things: Firstly, it imposes a development freeze on the Oak Ridges moraine. This will remain in place until the government issues a policy statement under the Planning Act to direct how the moraine will be dealt with in the long term.

Secondly, the bill amends the Planning Act to guarantee that environmental protection is front and centre in decisions involving development in Ontario. Decision-makers at all levels will have to ensure that decisions involving planning matters "shall be consistent ... with policy statements issued" by the provincial government.

In light of the ongoing concern regarding protection of the Oak Ridges moraine, and with the quality of water and security of water generally in Ontario, it's time for full public hearings on the NDP's Bill 71. I trust the committee and the government will proceed with these as soon as possible.

GRIMSBY CENOTAPH

Mr Brad Clark (Stoney Creek): I'd like to welcome all the members back to the House. I'd like to inform this House that on September 17 the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 127 in Grimsby celebrated the unveiling of its cenotaph on the grounds of the Grimsby Museum. This cenotaph will speak silently to present and future residents of the community and to visitors from near and far. It will remind everyone of the consequences of war and the need to preserve the peace.

The unveiling ceremony was very poignant and powerful. As Jack Hendricks, the legion's cenotaph committee chair, put it, "It came 50 years too late, but we sure did it right." In addition to Mr Hendricks, many individuals worked hard for over two years to see this project through. They include committee members Bernard Prévost, John Threader, Doreen Brown, Dan Moore, Colleen Lavadiere and Claire McCausland, a student architect who produced the cenotaph design.

Two honour blocks will accompany the structure now in place, and they are scheduled to be unveiled shortly. They will contain the names of those from Grimsby and the surrounding community who paid the ultimate sacrifice, their lives, to fight tyranny and preserve the freedom we all cherish. They will never be forgotten.

I congratulate the members of the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 127 and look forward to observing this year's Remembrance Day with them in Grimsby.

VICTORIAN ORDER OF NURSES

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): In the Hamilton area, over 200 VON nurses have now been on strike for the fourth week to protest and go after this government for equal funding, for fair funding and for better care for their patients. Many of these nurses are with us today. The VON has provided outstanding service over 100 years in the Hamilton area. An average nurse who works with the VON makes $7 an hour less than the same nurse in a hospital setting across this province. It is a discrepancy that you must address.

The funding announcement made earlier by the minister falls inadequately short of what is needed: over $3 million less than what the CCAC has asked for in Hamilton for the upcoming budget year. In the last two years there has been a 45% increase in the number of visits but less than a 25% increase in the money allocated to enable these visits to be carried out. In order for them to meet the budget you have given them, it would mean 1,000 fewer visits per day in the Hamilton area. They are not willing to sacrifice their patients the way you are with your inadequate funding.

This government has the power today to come forward and put on the table the money necessary to ensure that the nurses do what they want to do, and that is go back to work with their patients. They're professionals and they're dedicated. You have shortchanged them. This government has literally screwed the nurses who have worked hard to look after patients. It's time to fix this, and fix it once and for all.

PALERMO ATHLETICS

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Palermo Athletics, a men's AA fastball team, on their recent eastern Canadian fastball championship, won in Moncton, New Brunswick.

Led by four Miltonians, the Palermo team, out of north Oakville, claimed the title with a 6-1 record in the double-knockout event. Winning the title required two straight wins over Nova Scotia, with the ultimate game an 8-7 nail-biter.

In the final game, Milton's Darryl Herbert hit an eighth-inning homer to complete the comeback. Miltonians Tim Lamers and Larry Withnell also had key hits in the victory.

The eastern Canadian win comes on the heels of a strong seventh-place finish from among 48 teams in the world series AA North American Championships, held in Fargo, North Dakota.

Congratulations to the Palermo Athletics on a really great season in the year 2000.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Point of order, the member for Hamilton West.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I seek unanimous consent to have an emergency debate today on the strike and the crisis of the VON workers and on home care in general in Hamilton and across the province.

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

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that on Friday, June 23, in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, His Honour the Acting Administrator was pleased to assent to certain bills in the Lieutenant Governor's office.

Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): The following are the titles of the bills to which His Honour did assent:

Bill 28,

An Act to proclaim German Pioneers Day / Projet de loi 67, Loi proclamant le Jour des pionniers allemands;

Bill 49,

An Act to adopt an official tartan for Ontario / Projet de loi 132, Loi visant à adopter un tartan officiel pour l'Ontario;

Bill 68,

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

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

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;

Bill 74,

An Act to amend the Education Act to increase education quality, to improve the accountability of school boards to students, parents and taxpayers and to enhance students' school experience / Projet de loi 74, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'éducation pour rehausser la qualité de l'éducation, accroître la responsabilité des conseils scolaires devant les élèves, les parents et les contribuables et enrichir l'expérience scolaire des élèves;

Bill 81,

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

Loi sur la profession enseignante;

Bill 86,

An Act to establish the Association of Professional Geoscientists of Ontario / Loi visant à établir l'Ordre des géoscientifiques professionnels de l'Ontario;

Bill 87,

An Act to amend the Public Inquiries Act / Projet de loi 87, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les enquêtes publiques;

Bill 91,

An Act to require the mandatory reporting of severely damaged vehicles to counter motor vehicle fraud and theft / Projet de loi 91, Loi exigeant la déclaration obligatoire des véhicules gravement endommagés afin de lutter contre la fraude et le vol des véhicules automobiles;

Bill Pr3,

An Act respecting Peterborough Regional Health Centre;

Bill Pr5,

An Act respecting the Ross Memorial Hospital;

Bill Pr16,

An Act to incorporate Talpiot College;

Bill Pr19,

An Act respecting Redeemer Reformed Christian College;

Bill Pr20,

An Act respecting Ner Israel Yeshiva College;

Bill Pr21,

An Act to revive 1264030 Ontario Inc;

Bill Pr22,

An Act respecting the Town of Greater Napanee;

Bill Pr24,

An Act respecting Huron University College.

ELECTORAL DISTRICTS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House of the name changes of four electoral districts, occasioned by the passage of Bill C-473 by the House of Commons and the Senate of Canada, which received Royal Assent on June 29.

Effective that date, the electoral district of Wentworth-Burlington became Ancaster - Dundas - Flamborough - Aldershot, the electoral district of Bruce-Grey became Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, the electoral district of Carleton-Gloucester became Ottawa - Orléans and the electoral district of Broadview-Greenwood became Toronto-Danforth.

SPECIAL REPORT, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I further beg to inform the House that on Thursday, July 27, 2000, the special report of the Environmental Commissioner on the protection of Ontario's groundwater and intensive farming was tabled.

QUEEN MOTHER

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I further beg to inform the House that on August 4, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, conveyed thanks to the members of the assembly for our greetings sent to her on the occasion of her 100th birthday.

ANNUAL REPORT, CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I further beg to inform the House that on August 30, the 1999 annual report of the Chief Election Officer, under the Election Finances Act, was tabled.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that during the recess the Clerk received the 11th and 12th reports of the standing committee on government agencies. Pursuant to standing order 106(e)(9), these reports are deemed to have been adopted by the House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I beg leave to present a report on the office of the public guardian and trustee 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'd like to thank all of the staff who were involved in the report, as well as the committee members. It's the third report that has been presented by the committee. It's a unanimous report. If its recommendations are adopted by the government agency involved, hopefully it will improve the operations of the office, particularly for those Ontarians who will be dealing with this office.

With that, I move the adjournment of the debate.

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

Reports by committees?

Mr Gerretsen: I beg leave to present a report on Cancer Care Ontario from the standing committee on public accounts and move the adoption of its recommendations.

The Speaker: Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Gerretsen: Again I'd like to thank all those people who were involved in the report, both the staff and the committee members. It is the fourth report from the committee, and again it was a unanimous report. If adopted by the government and by the Ministry of Health and Cancer Care Ontario, it will undoubtedly improve the condition of those people who are suffering from cancer in this province.

With that, I move the adjournment of the debate.

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

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): On Tuesday, June 20, the member for Parkdale-High Park, Mr Kennedy, provided me with written material intended to supplement another point he had originally raised earlier in June and on which I delivered a ruling on June 21. The earlier point did not specifically address this new supplementary material.

The earlier point related to radio advertisements placed by the government on the subject of Bill 74, the Education Accountability Act. The supplementary material deals with a memorandum from the assistant deputy minister of education to directors of education throughout the province, also on the subject of Bill 74.

The member for Parkdale-High Park asserted that the terminology used by the assistant deputy minister in the memorandum was definitive in its description of the changes being made in the education system and did not qualify that those changes still required the passage of Bill 74, the bill that was in the standing committee on justice and social policy, and was in fact 11 days away from its eventual passage and 14 days from royal assent.

As a result, the member alleged that the memorandum presumed the outcome of public hearings still in progress and presumed that the bill would not only be passed by the House, but without further changes. Reference is made to a 1997 ruling by Speaker Stockwell in which he found that the government advertisement which similarly conveyed that a legislative outcome was a foregone conclusion constituted a prima facie contempt of the House. The member concluded that the current memorandum does the same and is therefore a similar violation of privileges.

I have carefully reviewed the memorandum in question. It does indeed use language that fails to convey the conditions that still must be met before changes it describes will be in effect, that is, the remainder of the legislative process and ultimately the approval by the House at third reading. It does not do so in a way that contemptuously dismisses the Legislature's superior role, since it makes no reference to that role at all.

That, though, is an important point: in many previous instances, previous Speakers have warned that care must be taken when describing proposed legislative changes to ensure they are described as just that-proposed changes which have not received legislative sanction. It is regrettable that we continue to see such communications as the one at hand. The member for Parkdale-High Park has certainly identified a genuine grievance, and I will again issue a caution to the civil servants on this count.

Notwithstanding my concern, however, I find that the memorandum in question does not constitute a prima facie contempt or a violation of the member's privileges.

In the first instance, unlike the broad-spectrum government advertising, the audience for this memo is not, strictly speaking, a public one. It is a group of education insiders, administrators with a specific need for the information being conveyed to them. This group would or should know that proposed changes were in the system but still subject to final approval, even though the memo did not say so.

Secondly, this group would indeed need to commence plans to implement the proposed changes, even if only on a contingency basis, on the supposition that they would pass the Legislature and would be in effect at the start of the following school year.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the same requirement to plan in advance applies to staff at the Ministry of Education, who were obligated to ensure that their partners in the education system were aware of the details of the proposed changes so that prudent planning would take place. Even though they were still being formally made, planning for such changes is a legitimate and necessary activity.

Speaker Edighoffer said in a similar situation, on page 273 of the Journals for December 20, 1989, "It is perfectly valid for the public service to proceed with plans based on a bill that is already in the system, in order to be able to act swiftly once the bill becomes law."

Though it unfortunately fails to account due deference to the Legislative Assembly and the legislative process, of which I strongly disapprove, the memorandum does represent a legitimate activity as described by Speaker Edighoffer.

I therefore find that a prima facie case of privilege has not been made out and I thank the member for his participation.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

VICTIMS' BILL OF RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA CHARTE DES DROITS DES VICTIMES D'ACTES CRIMINELS

Mr Flaherty moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 114,

An Act to amend the Victims' Bill of Rights, 1995 / Projet de loi 114, Loi modifiant la Charte de 1995 des droits des victimes d'actes criminels.

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

The Attorney General for a brief statement?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): This legislation, if passed, would permanently establish the Office for Victims of Crime. This office plays a pivotal role in helping victims of crime deal with a sudden and painful turn of events in their lives. The new Office for Victims-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I know it's the first day back, but we do need to hear other members when they are introducing bills. There will be plenty of time during question period to yell out.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Niagara, come to order, please. When the Speaker is up, stop speaking, please.

I apologize. Attorney General.

Hon Mr Flaherty: The new Office for Victims of Crime would provide advice on ways to ensure that the principles set out in the Victims' Bill of Rights are respected, legislation policy and practice is relevant to victims of crime, the development of provincial standards-

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Niagara, come to order, please.

Attorney General.

Hon Mr Flaherty: -for victims' services and the use of the victims' justice fund. As Attorney General, I will be seeking to assign the new agency special tasks that will reinforce its bonds with victims. Creation of a permanent Office for Victims of Crime keeps our government's Blueprint promise to create such an agency and fulfills our budget commitment of $1 million to support the office. Thank you.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE CONSERVATION, PROTECTION AND PROMOTION ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 200 SUR LA PRÉSERVATION, LA PROTECTION ET LA PROMOTION DE LA MORAINE D'OAK RIDGES

Mr Colle moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 115,

An Act to conserve and protect the Oak Ridges Moraine by stopping urban sprawl and uncontrolled development and promoting recreational, commercial and agricultural activities that are environmentally sustainable / Projet de loi 115, Loi visant à préserver et à protéger la moraine d'Oak Ridges en mettant fin au mitage et à l'aménagement désordonné et en favorisant des activités récréatives, commerciales et agricoles soucieuses de l'environnement.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): It is my pleasure here today, along with dozens of people from the Oak Ridges moraine who are here today in the gallery-

Applause.

The Speaker: Order. If the member could just take his seat, please. I just want to remind all of our guests we're obviously very pleased to have you here, but the members in the gallery should know unfortunately there is no clapping allowed in the House. Many of you probably don't know that, but I did just want to point that out and I would appreciate it if all members of the gallery would refrain from clapping. I know it's something that is hard not to do on occasion, but I would ask all members of the gallery to please abide by the rules of the House.

I'm sorry to interrupt the member. The member for a short statement?

Mr Colle: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill puts forward a temporary freeze on development on the Oak Ridges moraine from Port Perry all the way to the Caledon Hills. It puts this freeze in place until a protective plan can be put in place, and then this plan would be protected by a stewardship body that would ensure that the development on the moraine could not proceed unless it met the criteria of environmental sustainability.

This bill also recognizes the beauty and the recreational potential of the Oak Ridges moraine that are sustainable and the agricultural potential that is sustainable. It asks that this beauty be promoted, that there be ecotourism, that there be sustainable businesses like apple orchards, that there be hiking and fishing, that all these good activities could take place in the moraine as a result of this legislation.

I'm more than proud to stand up and say save, don't pave the Oak Ridges moraine.

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

LOI SUR L'ADOPTION INTERNATIONALE

Mr Cordiano moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 116,

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

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Joseph Cordiano (York South-Weston): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill is necessary, unfortunately, because the government has refused to do away with the dreaded $925 head tax it imposes on couples wishing to adopt from other countries, so we repeal clause 19(

c) of the Intercountry Adoption Act, 1998. That clause provides the director with the authority to charge for expenses he or she incurred in connection with the intercountry adoption.

A new

section is also added to the act which prohibits the government of Ontario from varying the amount it charges for intercountry adoptions solely on the basis of where the adoption will be finalized.

The Speaker: I apologize to the member. Apparently, in reading out the title I said "intercounty" and it should be "intercountry." I apologize for that mistake and correct the record.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I ask for unanimous consent that the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation, Protection and Promotion Act be given second reading and that it be referred to the general government committee to be considered along with the NDP Oak Ridges moraine bill, Bill 71, which has passed second reading and which I know the member supports, despite the Liberal catcalling.

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

MOTIONS

Hon Frank Klees (Minister without Portfolio): Mr Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding private members' public business.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Agreed? Agreed.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Frank Klees (Minister without Portfolio): I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(d), the following changes be made to the ballot list for private members' public business:

That Ms Lankin and Ms Churley exchange places in order of precedence, Mr Bradley and Mrs Bountrogianni exchange places in order of precedence, Mrs Munro and Mr Young exchange places in order of precedence, Mr Kennedy and Mrs McLeod exchange places in order of precedence;

That Mrs Molinari, Mr Guzzo and Mr Tascona exchange places in order of precedence such that Mrs Molinari assumes ballot item 57, Mr Guzzo assumes ballot item 39 and Mr Tascona assumes ballot item 53; and

Pursuant to standing order 96(g), notice be waived for the following ballot numbers: 35 through 38 inclusive.

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

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I'm asking for unanimous consent. As we know, education in this province is in a growing crisis because of the actions of the Minister of Education. Ontario will lose 2,000 teachers this year, increased workloads are forcing teachers to limit their extracurricular activities and some children who need remedial help are being denied that help.

In view of these issues, I seek unanimous consent from this House to allow the Minister of Education to explain how she intends to resolve these problems.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House? I heard some noes.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Mr Speaker, more to do to keep Ontario strong: that was the basis of the agenda we laid before the people of this province during the 1999 election, and that we presented to this Legislature during last year's throne speech. It is an agenda based on continued progress, not complacency; on sustained growth, not the status quo. For even though Ontario was back on track and our economy was strong, we realized we could not take success for granted.

This afternoon I want to report on what has been accomplished already and, more importantly, on what lies ahead. If I were to sum up our plan in one paragraph, it would be this: we are keeping our promises, we are honouring our commitments, we are doing what we said we would do and we will continue to do so.

The provincial budget has been balanced, just as we said. Taxes have been cut, just as we promised. More than 725,000 new jobs were created in less than five years, just as the Common Sense Revolution predicted. Teacher testing is being introduced. Work for welfare has been implemented. Health funding has increased, exactly as we promised.

To speak of these accomplishments as the achievements of government is to miss, though, their impact on people. These really are the successes of individual Ontarians. We are back on track toward our campaign Blueprint's target of an additional 825,000 net new jobs. Last month another 6,635 men, women and children broke free from welfare dependency. That's the 31st straight month in which welfare rolls have declined and reflects more than 535,000 personal victories off the welfare rolls since 1995.

Each and every one of these success stories reminds us of our fight, in the face of great opposition, to restore the principle of work for welfare, an extension of the great Canadian work ethic that built this great country.

The strides Ontario has made over the past five years have in fact been inspiring, but we can't confuse progress with victory. While much has been accomplished, there is still much to do.

When we took office in 1995, Ontario's deficit approached $11 billion. In response, we made dramatic changes, putting our fiscal house in order, identifying savings, doing better with less. We did this at the same time as we cut taxes-cut taxes to create jobs, to keep the economy strong and to return to taxpayers more of their hard-earned money. We stuck by our plan and the people of Ontario stood with us. This past May we announced the first back-to-back balanced budgets in more than 50 years. We are now enjoying a surplus and we are now paying down debt.

Our priority remains to increase take-home pay and to make families better off. Starting October 6, taxpayers will receive dividend cheques returning their share of last year's excess surplus, a surplus that belongs to hard-working taxpayers.

This fall we will introduce legislation to establish a made-for-Ontario tax system, one that allows us to cut taxes without federal interference. We will continue to eliminate job-killing regulations. We will introduce red tape legislation, expanding on the 12 bills that have already been passed.

The job of fixing government, of making it more effective, has only just begun. We will take further action to ensure taxpayers' money is spent wisely.

All levels of government must deliver services as efficiently as possible. We believe all municipal councils should be free to contract out the delivery of services, providing they honour their collective agreements. This fall the province will introduce legislation to transfer full responsibility for the administration of social housing to municipalities, giving them the say for pay and the ability to make local decisions on housing needs.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order.

Hon Mr Harris: Consistent with our Blueprint commitment, we will introduce legislation that would allow hard-working union members to learn how much of their dues are spent on the salaries and benefits of top union officials. Proposed legislation would also strengthen the right of individual workers to decide if they want to be represented by a union.

Following consultations on whether and how the Employment Standards Act might be updated, the Minister of Labour will introduce legislation to reflect the realities of the 21st century workplace.

Not only must government perform its job effectively; it must also know-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Premier, take his seat.

We're going to start off on the first day and set the rules very clearly. If I cannot hear the minister during the ministers' statements, I'm going to have to interrupt them. It seems as if we're going to have to be quick off the mark. I would ask for everybody's indulgence. We might not even get to question period before we name people, but we're not going to continue on shouting across like this. It's as simple as that.

I've said on numerous occasions that the people of this province expect us to come here-there is going to be some lively debate, but shouting across where no one can hear him is not what the people of this province want, and it's not going to happen in here.

I don't want to start off even before question period with a blanket warning to everybody, so we're going to ease into it, but I would say to all members that I cannot hear the Premier speaking, and we are not going to continue as long as I cannot hear the Premier speaking. I'm close enough that I should be able to hear him, and all members-it seems in rotation-on the opposition side are yelling. We're not going to put up with this in this session. I say this to all the members.

I apologize for the interruption, Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Not only must government perform its job effectively; it must also know when something is not its job. The cabinet committee on privatization and SuperBuild will continue to actively review and evaluate everything that government owns and all services that we provide. Following examples like the Bruce nuclear plant and the new Penetanguishene correctional facility, we will continue, where safety and high standards are met, to outsource, to contract out and to privatize. This is the only way to eliminate public sector monopolies that cost taxpayers hard-earned dollars.

Through the SuperBuild Corp, we are also-

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. Would the Premier take his seat.

I would ask the member to withdraw that. I heard exactly what he said. I would ask the member to withdraw that. It is not appropriate to yell those things across the House, especially on the first day as we are getting into it. Confrontational words like that are not acceptable any time, especially at the beginning.

Interjections.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): Speaker, would you hear my point, please.

Interjections.

Mr Levac: Speaker, what was the word?

The Speaker: The word was "liar."

Mr Levac: I did not say "liar."

Interjections.

The Speaker: I thought he said-would the member take his seat. Order. That's what happens when people get shouting back and forth. It's very difficult to hear people.

Premier, continue. I apologize for the interruption.

Hon Mr Harris: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Through the SuperBuild Corp, we are also investing in Ontario's future through projects which, when completed, will improve our quality of life, increase competitiveness and create even more jobs.

A strong economic plan combined with a vision for a prosperous Ontario allows our government to proceed with long-overdue investments in our province's capital infrastructure. In the budget, we invested more than $1 billion for health care capital, committed $1 billion to expand and improve Ontario's highways, and provided $1 billion for colleges and universities, to help create more than 73,000 new spaces for Ontario students. We are preparing for significant growth in this new economy, and we are determined to give our young people the skills they need for the hundreds of thousands of new jobs we will help to create in the years to come.

As a result of all these investments, this fall we will move forward with construction projects on a scope not seen in decades.

Keeping our streets safe is among our most important priorities. Families have the right not just to be safe, but to feel safe.

We can and we must do more to protect those who live in the shadow of domestic violence. Later this week, the Attorney General will introduce legislation that would lead to tougher consequences for abusers and provide better protection for victims.

We will introduce legislation that would protect the public and police from the misuse of imitation firearms.

With the failure of the federal Liberal government to improve the Criminal Code to combat organized crime, we will introduce our own legislation to fight this growing problem.

Today we introduced legislation that would formally establish the Office for Victims of Crime and give victims a greater voice in the criminal justice process.

We will further reform our prison, parole and probation system, introducing legislation that would impose tougher supervision for all offenders, respond strictly when probationers, parolees and prisoners use illegal drugs, and crack down on violent inmates. Serving time for breaking the law should be a form of punishment, not a free ride. We are introducing changes to teach criminals that their actions have consequences.

Ontario is blessed with forests and valleys and lakes and rivers, but we must be responsible stewards of this living legacy. That's why we will dramatically increase the number of parks and protected lands through our Living Legacy program. In addition, we will take steps to encourage revitalization of abandoned industrial areas that could become green spaces and integral parts of our communities.

Events in Walkerton serve as a wake-up call. Ontario families have every right to expect that the water coming out of their taps is drinkable and that it is safe. That didn't happen in Walkerton, where we still don't know exactly what went wrong or why. We need to ensure this doesn't happen again. That's why we appointed Justice Dennis O'Connor to conduct an independent inquiry.

While we await the judge's findings, we are already making changes designed to help prevent problems like this in future. Last month we strengthened water protection rules. Last week the Minister of the Environment reported on the many other steps we are taking. This fall we intend to set clear rules for small waterworks, ensure responsible agricultural practices and increase penalties for those who pollute the environment. In June we appointed a management expert to review the operation of the Ministry of the Environment and make recommendations for improvement.

We have also offered compensation to the victims of the Walkerton tragedy. The plan is no-fault, meaning victims need not prove liability, as they would have to do in court. Our offer is intended to provide a fair and fast out-of-court option to get money in the hands of those who need it as soon as possible.

Parents, government, communities, businesses-indeed, everyone in society-have a responsibility to ensure that all children get the best possible start in life. Already we have taken a leadership role in early child development. But this is only the beginning of our efforts to help children succeed.

We also understand the importance of a quality education for our children's future. This fall, however, our students are yet again threatened with teachers' strikes. We have been fair and we have been reasonable. We want to ensure that classrooms are not disrupted.

First, while establishing clear standards regarding the time teachers spend in the classroom, we have provided flexibility on how these standards can be met.

Then we accepted the union leaders' good faith that they would not withdraw co-instructional activities. We have not proclaimed sections of the Education Accountability Act which would have made it mandatory that teachers perform these duties. Teachers' unions may disagree with our government and our education reforms, but they should not be using students as pawns. They can oppose us, as they did in the last election, without punishing students.

We are determined to continue to improve education standards. This fall we will move forward with the implementation of comprehensive province-wide teacher testing. Our code of conduct sets clear rules of behaviour, and now we will start implementing new strict-discipline schooling programs for those who choose to seriously disrupt our classrooms. We will introduce legislation to promote excellence throughout the post-secondary system by giving students and parents the opportunity to choose privately funded institutions.

Ensuring access to quality health care still remains our most pressing concern. We inherited a system on the road to bankruptcy and disarray, so we launched an aggressive reform plan to meet Ontario's changing health care needs. We've increased provincial health spending dramatically. But as a son and as a parent, I know that we must do better. Our plan is working, but the health care system must be strengthened to meet the needs of an aging and of a growing population.

We'll continue to expand our hospitals and emergency rooms. We'll build new cancer and cardiac centres. We'll strengthen our internationally recognized mental health services. We're working to create 20,000 new long-term-care beds, the first since 1988. Inspired by recent news that Ontario's rate of organ donation has increased by 40% from last year, we'll act to continue to improve our organ donation system. Working with physicians and nurses, we'll continue primary care reform. Our goal is 24-hour, seven-day access to primary health care for everyone in Ontario.

For five years our innovative health reforms have led the nation, despite billions of dollars of federal cuts. I'm here today to tell you that without Ontario's leadership, the federal Liberals would never have reversed their cuts, never have restored the money; the recent agreement between Ottawa and the provinces would not have been reached. That's why we make absolutely no apologies for standing up to the federal government-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the Premier take his seat. Stop the clock, please. Order.

Sorry for the interruption. Premier?

Hon Mr Harris: Thank you, Mr Speaker. That's why, as I said, we make no apologies for standing up to the federal government for better health care. Even now, Ottawa will still fund less of health care than it did seven years ago.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the Premier take his seat. This is an official warning, the member for Windsor-St Clair, his last warning. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: As I said, even now Ottawa will still fund less of health care than it did seven years ago when it had a massive budget deficit.

We will continue to lead the way in getting Ottawa to pay its fair share of health care funding. As always, we will continue to keep our promises. We will do what we said we would do, not just to be able to say that we kept our promises but because, once kept, these promises will build a stronger Ontario.

Our revolutionary spirit endures, but not as an end in itself. Instead, it reflects our determination to fight for what's important to Ontario families: more efficient government, lower taxes, more jobs, safer streets, better environmental protection, higher education standards and better health care. That's what Ontario families have told us matters to them. That is, then, what matters to us, and that's what we will deliver.

The opposition and the special interests want to take Ontario backward, but we are moving forward to build a province that attracts investment and provides a better quality of life for hard-working middle-class families. This session, this fall, the Common Sense Revolution continues. The work of fixing government, the work of reforming government and of improving government, goes on, because even after five years there is still so much more to do.

The Speaker: Responses?

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, I can tell you that we on this side of the House are indeed very happy to be back in the House, because this is where we can best fight on behalf of the hard-working families who elected all of us, and what those families tell us they want is clean air, clean water and clean government. That's exactly what we're fighting for.

Three months have passed since we gathered here, and the people of Walkerton are still without clean and safe drinking water. Three months have passed and our air is still making Ontarians, but especially our children, sick. Three months have passed and the government continues to waste millions of taxpayer dollars on partisan political advertising. Unsafe water, dirty air and a filthy waste of taxpayers' money: that is what the Harris government has left for the people of this province.

Now the Premier would have us believe that the government is back on its feet and that he's back to work after the longest vacation in Ontario's political history. Well, we're not buying it. What we have here is a government that is on the run: on the run from its own record, on the run from the worst environmental disaster in Ontario's history, on the run from the continuing and mounting crisis in our emergency wards, on the run from the turmoil that he's created in our schools.

This government, by its own admission, has no vision, no direction and no agenda. In a word, this government is adrift. So instead it runs ads, millions of dollars worth of ads, wasting millions of dollars in taxpayers' money. Do you know why they're doing that, Mr Speaker? Because when you're all spin and no substance, you've got to do a heck of a lot of spinning. This government has been very busy spinning the media lately, particularly when it comes to the law-and-order agenda. They are doing this not out of any sincere concern for public safety, but in an attempt to paper over a lack of vision.

Let's be clear on the subject of public safety. We on this side are all for law and order, but let's see some meaningful reforms. This government is all talk and no action when it comes to law and order. It would rather pass the buck to Ottawa than pass meaningful reforms. When we speak of crime in this session, let us do everything we can to ensure that the punishment handed out is swift and just, but let us also match the punishment with real prevention.

I note with interest that the Premier is following our lead to ban phony guns in Ontario, and I ask the Premier, if he is so genuinely dedicated and committed to that purpose, that he then pass my colleague Michael Bryant's bill, which received unanimous agreement on second reading. If the Premier chose to do so, we could make that law today.

Why not take law and order a step further? Why don't we pass a law that restores order to the protection of our drinking water and our air? Why don't we pass a law that will stop the fighting and put in place funding that will restore order to our schools? Why don't we pass a law and put in place modern reforms that will restore order to our health care system? That would be a real vision for Ontario, instead of passing the buck and papering over failures with millions of dollars in advertising.

In this session, Ontarians are going to see a real difference between a government that is running from its mistakes and Ontario Liberals who are fighting for hard-working families and the things they absolutely need to be able to count on: good schools, dependable health care, clean air, clean water and clean government. The people of Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot recognize the difference. Now all Ontarians will have the chance to see the Ontario Liberals fight for them, and that's why we are thrilled to be back here.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): We wondered what was happening to the Premier down in Sydney, Australia. I think it's pretty apparent now that he got too much sun. What's obvious is that this is a government that has come here today determined to evade and avoid dealing with the real problems of people in Ontario.

Premier, you talk a lot in your speech about punishment, but people in Ontario want to see some prevention. They want to see a government take action on clean water before six people die and 2,000 people are rendered ill. They want to see a government bring forward a safe drinking water act, but there's no mention of it here. Well, Premier, there is a Safe Drinking Water Act. It's been brought forward by my colleague Marilyn Churley. We're going to vote on it this Thursday. Will you and your members be there to vote for a Safe Drinking Water Act for Ontario on Thursday?

Premier, you also talk about punishment and law and order, but there was a whole group of women here last week; 80 women's groups came to talk to this government about preventing violence against women and children, and not one member of the government was prepared to talk to them. Preventing violence against women, preventing violence against children, ensuring that it doesn't happen, and your government didn't even have the gumption to meet with them.

There are people across this province who want to see action to deal with the developing nursing crisis. Nothing. We have more communities than ever in this province that cannot find an adequate number of physicians, and what do we get from this government? A press release, another press release, another press release.

We find out today that cancer patient waiting lists for treatment are growing longer and longer. Does this government have an agenda? No, just another press release. We know that cancer patients in northern Ontario, who are regularly having to travel six and seven hours, who in many cases have to fly here to Toronto to get cancer treatment, are told by this government, "Pay for it yourself out of your own pocket." But if you happen to be from one of the cabinet ministers' ridings, if you happen to be from Mississauga or Scarborough, the Minister of Health will pay for the full shot: the air fare, the taxi, the food allowance, everything-

Interjection.

Mr Hampton: -and this from a government that has to acknowledge it's got a $3.5-billion surplus-

The Speaker: Order. Stop the clock. Member take his seat. I would ask the member for Brampton to withdraw that.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): I withdraw.

Mr Hampton: And then, Speaker, this government talks about how it's going to invest in early childhood education. Well, Premier, I'd be happier if you had invested a while ago, because while you were in Sydney, an 18-month-old child drowned in an unlicensed, unregulated child care centre, the kind of unlicensed, unregulated child care that your government is trying to push on more and more parents in this province.

Premier, you've got a $3.5-billion surplus. Why not make a real investment in children in this province? Ensure that when they go to child care, it's a licensed, regulated child care centre that follows the rules of health and safety for our children. That is really dealing with the issues that confront families and parents.

Then, this government is going to put forward changes to the Employment Standards Act that are going to take us back into the last century. This government wants to promote a 60-hour work week. The rest of the world is learning to work smarter, not longer, not harder, not putting more and more people at risk.

Some of the government members laugh. I just want you to know that there's a case you should look at, a steelworker in Sudbury who was following your pattern. He worked 30 consecutive 12-hour days and then, when he was going home, he fell asleep at the wheel of his car, crashed and died. We're talking about health and safety here. That's the agenda you should be following, one of investing in the people of Ontario, not a propaganda campaign to avoid the real issues.

The Speaker: Just before we begin question period, I'll remind members of the procedures here. Each member will have about a minute for the question, which I will also remind you is a little longer than they have in other jurisdictions around Canada. You'll have about a minute. What we will do is, at about 50 seconds I will shout out either "question" or "answer" depending on what the case may be. You'll have about 10 seconds to wrap up, and at that point I'll have to stand up and cut off whomever at about a minute.

I would ask all members not to shout "question" and "answer." We will try to make sure we watch the clock diligently, as will the table. But I will say it gets very confusing when people are shouting "question" and "answer," because if it's somebody down at the far end, they don't know if I've yelled it or somebody else.

I would ask all members if they would kindly co-operate. That way, we'll be able to get as many questions on for as many members as we can. With that, we'll start oral questions.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Given the Premier's announcement today, I seek unanimous consent to call for second reading of my colleague, Michael Bryant, the member for St Paul's Bill 67, which would deal with the phony gun issue here and now, today. I seek unanimous consent to give second and third readings.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I hear some noes.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Four months ago the people of Walkerton were hit by the worst environmental disaster in the history of this province. Six people died and 2,000 more became seriously ill. We dragged you, kicking and screaming, into holding a full independent public inquiry, and we very much look forward to the results of that inquiry, as do the people of Walkerton.

But I can tell you there's something else that the people of Walkerton are looking forward to. It has now been four months and four days since they've had access to clean and safe drinking water through their taps. My question to you, Premier, on behalf of the families living in Walkerton today, is, why is it taking so long to turn the water back on in Walkerton?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The details of that would much better come from the Minister of the Environment, who's on the file on a daily basis. But let me say in general terms that we are doing everything we possibly can as quickly as we possibly can to restore clean water to Walkerton.

If there is an error to be made, we want to err on the side of a little longer to ensure that the water is safe. I think you are aware of what the mayor of Walkerton himself said: "From day one, Premier Mike Harris, the Minister of the Environment, Dan Newman, the Attorney General, James Flaherty, and the Ontario support team have done whatever it takes to restore clean and safe water to the residents of Brockton," the municipality that includes Walkerton. And we are indeed doing that. If you'd like details to date, I'd be happy to refer the supplementary to the minister.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, I would invite you to speak to the people living in Walkerton and ask them in a very direct way about what they think of your record when it comes to turning their taps back on.

Along with the perks and privileges and trappings that come with the Premier's office come a few basic and fundamental responsibilities. I would suggest to you, Premier, that one of the most basic responsibilities would be, in these circumstances, to ensure that the people of Walkerton have access to safe and clean drinking water. It's been four months and four days since they've been able to turn the taps on. The stuff that is still coming out of there today is deadly. It is toxic.

I'm asking you again, on their behalf, Premier. The answer that you just gave me was unacceptable. Why is it taking so darn long to get the water back on in Walkerton?

Hon Mr Harris: Again, if you would like all the technical details, which are given to the people of Walkerton on a regular basis, by the experts who have been retained-certainly we've allowed, through the Ministry of the Environment, for unlimited access to the very best professionals and engineers and teams of specialists that we can get.

I realize that, as leader of your party in an opposition role, you would never agree, but certainly the mayor of Walkerton, I think, agrees. I think sensible people do. I certainly know the newly elected member from Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot, Ted McMeekin, your member, said, "I think the Minister of the Environment needs to receive some kudos for some of the actions that have been taken, for putting the water regulations in place. I think the government is trying as best it can."

I understand you have to represent an opposition, negative viewpoint, but I think reasonable people would say otherwise.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, I would suggest that instead of your European sojourns, you take the time and speak with people living in Walkerton, quite apart from the mayor. There are a number of people other than the mayor living in the community, and you might want to find out what the families living there are experiencing.

You know what they've told me? They are tired of lugging jugs of water up and down the stairs every day. They are tired of washing their hands with Javex every time they or their children come into contact with the water that's in the taps today. They are sick and tired of the smell of Javex and bleach on their dishes and on their clothes and on their pots and pans. That's the kind of interruption to their daily lives that these people are living with.

Why is it taking so long to fix this problem? Maybe, Premier, if you can't tell me why, tell me when. When is the water going to be turned back on so that the people of Walkerton can get back on with their lives?

Hon Mr Harris: I can assure you that I, too, talk to people from Walkerton. We have ministers talking to them on a regular basis. We have ministry staff talking to them on a regular basis. I think reasonable people would want to ensure that the goal is not how fast you turn the water back on in Walkerton; the goal is how do you absolutely ensure that the water, when it is turned back on, is safe.

There's a lot of work going on. As I said, if you truly want the details, you know you can get more of the details from the Minister of the Environment. If you want to know when, the "when" is exactly the second it is absolutely 100% guaranteed safe.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is also for the Premier. I think the province should mark the passage of the new millennium, and apparently you agree. Unfortunately, your millennium legacy is going to be a pile of garbage 700 feet high, to be placed in an open pit mine in northern Ontario which feeds into Ontario's purest water, and that dump is going to have an existence for the next 1,000 years.

Premier, can you guarantee Ontarians that at no time during the next 1,000 years will the liquid poison produced by your dump ever leak into our underground streams and rivers and make either today's generation or future generations sick? Can you offer us that guarantee?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): What I can offer to you is the guarantee that any dump site or any disposal site for garbage anywhere in the province, any extension of any proposal for a dump site, must go through a most rigorous environmental assessment with all of the professionals, not the politicians, making the decision independently, at arm's length from government, of whether that proposal is safe or whether it is not safe.

I understand that you and your party are for continuing to dump garbage on the Oak Ridges moraine. I understand that you think it's quite acceptable to send it down to southwestern Ontario. I understand that you think it's quite acceptable to ship the garbage to Michigan. But at the end of the day, responsible people have to take care of their own garbage.

We ask municipalities to follow the rules, tough regulations, full environmental assessment, and each project is reviewed on that basis.

Mr McGuinty: The only conclusion we can draw here is that you have failed to learn the painful lesson that everybody in this province has drawn, apart from yourself, from Walkerton. We're talking about 700 feet, in terms of the height of the garbage that's going to be placed in an open pit mine. You are choosing to place your confidence in an untried, untested pumping system that must continue to operate without fail for at least 100 years.

Premier, why is it that you are continuing to gamble with the safety and security of Ontarians, and generations yet to come, when it comes to the safety of our water supply, when it comes to guarding the right of Ontarians to enjoy safe and clean water? And we never had a full environmental assessment; we had a Mike Harris environmental assessment. There is a world of difference between the two, and you should be honest enough to admit that.

I ask you again, why are you prepared to gamble with the safety of Ontarians' lives by going ahead with a scheme which is untried and untested?

Hon Mr Harris: I think the member would know and acknowledge that there is no such thing as an individual's environmental assessment or a government environmental assessment. What the government does is lay out rules for the most stringent of assessments for any dump site, I believe anywhere, I might add, in North America. This is the process that the proponent went through, and then it is up to the city of Toronto to make a decision, do they wish to use this facility.

I have to say to the member that what is irresponsible is to continually say, "Not in my backyard, don't put garbage there," with never ever having a solution other than shipping it out of the country or carrying on in the Oak Ridges moraine of your own. That is irresponsible.

Mr McGuinty: Do you really want to know what's irresponsible? What's irresponsible is piling garbage 700 feet high in an open pit mine which is at present filled with water which is known to leak through, and there is a great likelihood that it is going to contaminate underground aquifers, underground streams, flow into Ontario rivers. That is irresponsible, Premier.

Why is it that you have failed to draw the lessons from Walkerton? Why is it that as the Premier of this province you are not standing on guard against any schemes where there might be the slightest chance of polluting our waters one more time and having that pollution, that toxicity, ending up inside our taps and somehow endangering the lives of our children? Why is it that you aren't standing up and saying, "Yes, I'm for alternatives, but I've looked at this one and this one is irresponsible"?

Hon Mr Harris: I suppose the great Toronto garbage mess began when politicians said: "Not here. You're not going to do it here. You can't dump it there." Politicians shouldn't be deciding where garbage is going to go. Politicians shouldn't be deciding where in fact is a safe site. That is left for the experts, that is left for the engineers, that is left for the scientists, through an independent environmental assessment process. That is the process that was followed in the Adams mine site.

I again ask you, since you think you should be standing up saying it shouldn't go here, it shouldn't go there-we know where you don't want it-where do you suggest Toronto put its garbage? On the Oak Ridges moraine? Ship it to Michigan? What's your responsible position? It is the kind of position of a Liberal Party that got this province into the mess that we've been in for the last 20 years. You're all for never doing anything. You cannot stand up and take a responsible position, and that's the problem.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I want to acknowledge that many of the Liberals who voted against legislation which banned the use of the Adams mine site are now finally seeing the light and they're opposed to the Adams mine.

My question to the Premier is this: since even the Liberals now recognize that this is a very risky proposal, since municipal-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member take his seat. We were doing quite well on the time. That means more questions on. I will remind everybody that the more time that I stand here the less time we have to ask questions, when you're shouting back and forth. We will start from the beginning on the minute because the member didn't get a chance to get into it. The leader of the third party, sorry for the interruption.

Mr Hampton: Premier, municipal leaders now in Ontario and Quebec, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the neighbouring Timiskaming First Nation, even some of the Liberal backbenchers in Ottawa are now opposing this project, because they recognize it is incredibly risky and it makes no sense.

The question to you is this: have you learned anything from Walkerton? If you have, use your power to say no to this very risky deal. Say no to the Adams mine dump.

Hon Mr Harris: I want to welcome the member back-speaking of taking irresponsible positions-into the Legislature, because, yes, you have been consistently thinking that politicians should override environmental assessment, override the professionals, override the experts and say, "Not in my backyard." You have been consistent on that.

You're quite right: the Liberals are for it one day, against it the next, and they flip-flop back and forth. Pretty soon the Liberals are going to put out a release saying, "No, no, no, make sure you don't extend the Keele Valley dump site," after leaving that option open. We understand that.

You have been consistently saying that politicians should interfere in the environmental assessment process. I have the same question for you as I had for the leader of the flip-flop party: since you think politicians should decide, where should Toronto's garbage go?

Mr Hampton: Well, Premier, I'll take you up on that. Ontario, and principally Toronto, should follow the lead of Halifax and Edmonton and we should start reusing, recycling and composting and reduce by 80% the amount of waste that is generated. That's what we need to do.

I want to refer to one of the Premier's experts. On June 20, your Deputy Minister of Northern Development and Mines wrote to the chair of the Toronto works committee urging him to support the Adams mine project because, he said, "It's the only complete Ontario-based solution." Premier, you must know that's wrong. This landfill, if it goes ahead, is going to be owned by Waste Management Inc of Houston, Texas. You must know of them. They gave $74,000 to your re-election campaign. You must know of them. They're under investigation in at least eight states in the United States. They've been fined over and over again.

Premier, before it becomes obvious to everybody but you, say no to this incredibly risky, incredibly suspect, bad strategy. Move to recycling, reuse and composting. Do the environmentally intelligent thing. Will you do that?

Hon Mr Harris: Let me first of all thank the member for reminding folks about reducing, reusing, recycling, composting. All those things, of course, we are supporting and we are encouraging; they are the first line of defence, if you like, in not having to dispose of garbage. But I would point out to you that every jurisdiction, including Edmonton and wherever else you mentioned, at the end of the day still has to put garbage somewhere.

I asked you a question. I think you've indicated that politicians should decide where garbage should go. We don't believe that. We think it should go to the professionals and to the environmental assessment process. To the leader of the New Democratic Party, I guess the last time you had the opportunity, you wanted a garbage dump 10 storeys high next to the Rouge River on sandy silt soil. This was under your IWA. Is this still the NDP position? You haven't given us any alternative. Your last position was right beside the Rouge River. Is that still your position?

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Premier, we're offering you a solution today. I'm going to try again, and I'll ask you again, when are you going to wake up and say no to this disastrous plan? The only made-in-Ontario solution that is happening here is that 83 billion litres of clean water will be polluted over the 20-year lifespan of this dump if it goes ahead.

Those pushing the Adams mine plan or the expansion of the Lindsay site want us to believe, as you're saying yourself today, that there is no alternative to outdated megadumps. But there is. In Tory-ruled Alberta and Nova Scotia they have proven otherwise. They are diverting up to 60% to 80% out of landfill. Your own handpicked waste diversion organization told you that you have to move to composting.

I'm asking you, will you tell Toronto that Ontario will financially support banning organics from landfills, that there is an alternative? Will you help them say no to the Adams mine deal and protect our water, Premier?

Hon Mr Harris: As I said to your leader before he ducked the final supplementary, and let me say to you, of course we are very supportive of anything we can do to reduce the amount of garbage that ultimately needs to be disposed of. Whether it's reducing, recycling, reusing, composting, that is exactly what we want to encourage first and foremost.

However, since your leader refused to answer, I would ask you, as the environment critic for your party, is it still your position that you put forward under the IWA-and we've heard nothing since-that Toronto's garbage should be stored 10 storeys high next to the Rouge River on sandy silt soil? That's where you had it before you lost office. Is that still your position?

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT STAFF

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have a question for the Premier. I ask the questions here, Premier, not you. I want an answer too, because this is a very serious question.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock. Order.

Member for Toronto-Danforth. Sorry for the interruption.

Hon Frank Klees (Minister without Portfolio): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask for unanimous consent to have the member give an answer.

The Speaker: The member will know that we ask that points of order don't come in question period, because if you start that, we're going to have the other side doing it as well. I would appreciate the chief government whip not starting with that right off the bat the first day. I say to all members, we have one hour for question period. It's the members' time. We do not want to get into points of order during question period. I would ask all members to consider that.

Sorry again for the interruption. The member for Toronto-Danforth.

Ms Churley: Thank you, Speaker.

Premier, the people of Ontario want to know why you are still putting tax cuts ahead of safe water. In the draft cabinet document we released, your ministry said you need 500 new staff, but they said you should at least hire a SWAT team of 138 new employees. You couldn't even go to half that amount, Premier. You chose 65, and those are only temporary contracts. But on top of that, Premier, yesterday one of your MOE staff told me that they were shocked to read a memo from the deputy at environment saying that even those 65 won't be all new, additional staff.

Are you really going to use existing staff along with some new hires when you're so short-staffed already? Premier, will you guarantee that none of the 65 temporary new hires will come out of the existing MOE staff?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'm disappointed that you seem to have so little confidence in the existing MOE staff. Obviously, if they're capable of performing the job and if they have time to do the job, then I would assume the deputy minister would invite them to do this job. If you would like to get into the details of the actual numbers of people, I could refer in supplementaries, and I will if you wish that, to the Minister of the Environment.

But let me say in response to the first part of your question that it has been tax cuts-over your objections, over Liberal objections-that have led and fuelled the miraculous recovery of the province of Ontario, that have balanced the books a year ahead of schedule, that have given us the billions of dollars we have had for health care, for environment, for education, for investments into children in this province. Without tax cuts, we would not have had those dollars to make these kinds of reinvestments.

The second part of your question deals with the number of staff-

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

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): It would seem that the Premier has learned nothing. You laid off 1,000 staff at the Ministry of the Environment. It meant you didn't have the inspectors, the enforcement officers, to prevent something like Walkerton from happening.

My question is, have you learned anything? People want safe drinking water. This Thursday, Bill 96, the Safe Drinking Water Act by my colleague Marilyn Churley, comes before this Legislature for a vote. You have a chance to rectify some of the damage you've done. You have a chance to put in place legislation which will protect Ontario's drinking water. What are you going to do, Premier? Are you going to support Bill 96, the Safe Drinking Water Act, or are you going to continue to emphasize tax cuts over protecting the environment?

Hon Mr Harris: Let me just correct the record, that it has only been tax cuts that have given us the economy, the jobs and the dollars to invest into health care, into the environment. In fact, had we not cut the heavy burden of taxes that you and the Liberals had brought in over 10 years, we would not have the employment, we would not have the dollars, we would not have the books balanced and we would not be able to make the investments required into all areas of government programs. It's only because of that that we are spending record amounts here in Ontario with balanced books.

I could give you a litany of things we have done to improve clean water: Operation Clean Water itself, which is focusing province-wide efforts to improve water quality; tough, clear standards now with the full force of law so that we don't need the legislation you're talking about, which would be repetitive and duplicate the regulations we've already brought in place; effective inspection and enforcement; tough penalties for non-compliance; strategic investments and efficient delivery practices; a new drinking water protection regulation; consultation with the owners and users of small waterworks-the discussion paper is out there; private wells. In addition, the provincial chief medical-

The Speaker: Order. I'm afraid the Premier's time is up. Can we stop the clock for just a quick moment, please.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I apologize for interrupting the flow of question period, but I inadvertently forgot to introduce a guest, with so much happening before question period. So I apologize to all members.

In the Speaker's gallery today we have Michael German, member of the National Assembly of Wales. If all members could join in welcoming him.

Again, I apologize for interrupting the flow. I inadvertently forgot and our friend has to leave, so I apologize for that.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Just at the outset, however, I'd like to say how pleased I am to be here and how pleased I am that the government follows with some regularity comments I make. I wonder if they take the time to follow the published comments of their own members, or should I say "ex-members."

In a published interview last week, the former member, Toni Skarica, had this to say about this government and the Hamilton supercity, and I quote, "The government wanted a local solution. A Mississauga bureaucrat came up with a bogus report, about as close to a local solution as a marriage is to a brothel, except in a brothel, unlike in my community, there's consent to the acts that are going on."

Later in the same interview he added, "I really feel sorry for my Tory colleagues because I know they didn't support the supercity legislation. Basically, the Premier pulled his card out. When he saw he didn't have support, he said, `Look, you vote against this and it's a vote against my leadership.' He got everybody in line and the whole government voted for something they didn't believe in."

Minister, those comments by your former member are, to say the least, very startling. How can a government that has such contempt for its own members expect to keep the support of the people?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Let me offer verbally my welcome to the honourable member and the debates that go on here. That's the end of the welcome.

The fact of the matter is, as the honourable member knows because he participated in it, there have been 20, 30, 40 years of discussion in that community over how best to deliver better services at less cost to the taxpayer, how best to have accountability for the local citizen in the local representative government. That discussion took place for so long that eventually all of the local representatives, all of the civic leaders, all of the business leaders and the citizens said, "We can't do it alone. We need your help. We need the provincial government to be part of the solution."

It was only as a result of that that this government did pass a law as part of this Legislature and this government did act on behalf of the citizens. Lower taxes, more accountable government, a government that works for them-that is what we on this side of the Legislature are fighting for day in and day out.

Mr McMeekin: Mr Minister, given that your own special adviser projected suburban tax increases of up to 12% in the new supercity and, in fact, double that once the area rating comes off, I want to ask, is your government prepared today, right now, to guarantee that every citizen in the new city of Hamilton will receive the same or better service without any increase in property taxes, and will you, Mr Minister, move to introduce legislation to ensure that no property tax increases will occur in your new supercity?

Hon Mr Clement: I can say to the honourable member, without fear of contradiction, that we have done more to protect the citizens in his riding against property tax increases through our legislation, through area rating, through mandating that the tax cuts are front-end loaded, than that honourable member did or the Leader of the Opposition did.

I'll read the honourable member a quote. This is what the Leader of the Opposition said: "We are going to provide an opportunity for consensus. Ninety days. If the communities are unable to arrive at a position of their own accord in that period of time, we will appoint someone else who will consult and return to the government with recommendations, and then we'll act on the recommendations." That's what his leader said before he flip-flopped. This honourable member had a proposal before his community that would have meant over 98% of his community would have received up to 34% tax increases.

We stepped in and said that is not good enough for the people of Ontario, particularly in his riding. We are here to protect the taxpayer.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Minister of Education. While recently at the plowing match, I received a pamphlet under the windshield wiper of my car. It was distributed by the local Liberal association in an attempt to promote their agenda and, of course, try to defeat this government. Talk about spinning an agenda, I can't find anything in it that's really accurate, and I want to question the minister. This is a quote from it: "A Dalton McGuinty government will restore junior kindergarten."

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The member take his seat. I can't hear the member. Sorry for the interruption to the member.

Mr Galt: It clearly states that a Dalton McGuinty government will restore junior kindergarten. Now, Minister, you can't restore it unless it's been removed. What are they talking about, or is this accurate, and I doubt that it is. When was junior kindergarten, in effect, eliminated?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): I agree that it's quite difficult to follow where the Liberals are coming from on this, because I'm not sure what junior kindergarten they're trying to restore, since 70 of the 72 school boards provide junior kindergarten. As a matter of fact, we've had a 24% increase in the number of children going to junior kindergarten, and the two school boards that don't have junior kindergarten get funding from this government for an alternative program. We think junior kindergarten and kindergarten are very important in getting our young children off to a good start.

That's one of the reasons we've revamped curriculum for kindergarten, the first time that's happened in 50 years-very much needed.

We've also brought in a new learning assessment procedure, so that we know if our children are ready to learn and can learn, and we've increased funding for reading and literacy skills at those crucial early stages-very important, junior kindergarten.

Mr Galt: Thank you very much, Minister, for that very informative response. I also notice that on the cover it says, "Only two people can stop Mike Harris." Obviously, Dalton McGuinty alone will never be able to stop him. It's pretty clear on the front cover here that Dalton is admitting it.

Clearly, the members on the other side just don't get it, because they as a caucus had a very poor turnout at the plowing match. We had a tremendous turnout. But I would like you to respond to another quote, Minister, if you don't mind, "A Dalton McGuinty government will stop the Harris-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Members, I appreciate the input from all members. The member can ask the question on his own. Again, I apologize for the interruptions. The member may continue.

Mr Galt: Thank you very much. As I was saying to the minister, just if she'd respond to the second one, "A Dalton McGuinty government will stop the Harris education cuts and guarantee adequate funding for our schools."

I just don't understand: with the continuous increase in funding, maybe you could state how much money this government spends on education so that the members opposite can see that this government takes the education system very seriously.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Factual descriptions of what is happening in education are something that is sadly lacking in material of that kind from the other side of the House. Our goal-we've been very clear in education reform-is better quality, more accountability, more resources focused in the classroom. That's why we're spending more on education today than was being spent in 1995-96, from $12.9 billion up to $13.5 billion. More of that is in classrooms; some $700 million more of that is in classrooms than was there before.

We've had significant increases in priority areas like special needs children, for example, a 12% increase in the amount of money for school boards to offer those very important services.

We've been very true to what we said we would do: to focus good-quality resources in the classroom. I'm in the process of meeting yet again with my partners to see how we can make further enhancements for the coming school year.

BREAST CANCER

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the minister of health. It was nothing less than shocking to learn that women with breast cancer in Ontario may have to wait as long as seven months to get the treatment they need. Seven months is an unbelievable, agonizing time to wait when you have a disease that threatens your life. This time last year, you were assuring us that at least 50% of patients needing radiation would be seen within four weeks. We didn't consider that a very reassuring target at the time, but now we find that patients are waiting longer than ever. Things are getting worse, not better, and your response is to have a bureaucrat investigate the situation.

Surely you know this is a crisis that is spiralling out of control. Surely you're not just beginning to investigate this situation. After your completely false reassurances of a year ago, what can you say now to women with breast cancer who today are having to wait as long as seven months to get treatment?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): As the member well knows, we have made progress. This situation regarding waiting times was brought to our attention in November 1998. Since that time, Cancer Care Ontario, which has the responsibility for making the decisions related to cancer treatment and waiting times, has been moving forward very aggressively.

In fact, I'm very pleased to indicate to you that a meeting took place between the Deputy Minister, Mr Closson, the head of the University Health Network and Dr Shumak, the head of Cancer Care Ontario. At that meeting, they made a commitment to us that Princess Margaret Hospital will expand its capacity for breast cancer radiation therapy by 50% and give priority to the people who are on the waiting list.

I want to assure you that action continues to be taken very quickly. As you know, we have invested over $55 million since 1998 to reduce the waiting times, and we are seeing a reduction.

Mrs McLeod: Those are the same reassurances you gave this House a year ago, and now we have waiting lists that are longer than anybody involved in cancer care has ever seen, as much as seven months for women with breast cancer.

You are sending hundreds of cancer patients away from home to get care, and yet you can't provide timely treatment to those who can't travel. To those people you are saying, "Tough. You'll have to wait two months or three months or seven months." That's the only answer you've given them, when you've known about this crisis for at least a year.

Your government helped to create the crisis when you shut down the radiation therapy training programs. Now we have a critical shortage of therapists. We have an increasingly critical shortage of radiation oncologists, and you're not going to deal with that either. We have more and more people who are getting cancer who are going to need treatment and who aren't going to get it. And if the former minister of health thinks that women waiting for seven months to get breast cancer treatment is silly, tell me what his priority would be and why he helped create the problem women are facing right now.

Minister, your government's short-sightedness has helped create the crisis we face today. Your government's refusal to see what's ahead of it will guarantee one thing only, and that's that more and more people are going to wait longer and longer for treatment.

You say it is unacceptable to have a seven-month wait for radiation treatment. We say it's intolerable to risk having any patient die on a waiting list in this province.

Minister, will you sit down immediately with Cancer Care Ontario and develop a two-year, five-year and 10-year plan to provide adequate staffing and resources to meet the critical and growing need for cancer care in this province?

Hon Mrs Witmer: It is very unfortunate that there is so much information that has just been communicated that is inconsistent with what is happening today. Since 1998, as the member knows, we have been working with Cancer Care Ontario to take steps to reduce the waiting list-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Would the minister take her seat.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): You knew what was happening.

The Speaker: The member for Windsor West, this is her last warning as well. Sorry, Minister. Please continue.

Hon Mrs Witmer: We have been working diligently, and Cancer Care Ontario has undertaken initiative after initiative. They have been supported. We have added $160 million to cancer services, and we are making tremendous progress. We have added 11 new drugs. The number of people receiving radiation therapy has increased by 25%. I am also pleased to tell you that when it comes to radiation therapy, we never closed any program down; in fact, we have expanded the number of spaces from 50 to 75.

Furthermore, I would again draw the member's attention-

The Speaker: Order. The minister's time is up.

CROP INSURANCE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Let me start by saying I want to thank you, Minister, for visiting my riding this summer and meeting with constituents and dealing with their questions during your visit to the riding of Durham.

Of course, a significant number of people in my riding earn their livelihood in the agricultural sector. As you would know, it is the second-largest industry in the riding of Durham. There is very clear evidence to consider the success of local agriculture business when you look at the success of fairs like Blackstock, Orono, and the Durham Central Fair.

I have met, as you have, with members such as Burt Werry, who is here in the chamber today, Dave Frew, Brian deJong and others, including Dave Barry, president of the federation of agriculture. They've said very clearly that they want to level the playing field with the United States and ensure there are emergency safety net programs to deal with a very difficult year of low yield, low output and low price.

Minister, could you perhaps tell my constituents and the people of Ontario what your ministry is doing to help during this very difficult period in Ontario?

Hon Ernie Hardeman (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I thank the member for Durham for his question. I certainly enjoyed travelling in his area this summer and meeting with farmers in a part of Ontario with such a strong agricultural sector.

First let me assure the member that we understand the concerns of Ontario farmers and are working hard to help them as effectively as possible in a year with low prices and poor growing conditions.

We've taken leadership in standing up for our province's farmers with the federal government to make sure we get a fair share of the farm safety net funding. I am happy to report that persistence has paid off. Earlier this summer we signed an agreement with the federal government to make sure our Ontario farmers get their fair share, which will mean another $30 million of federal money for Ontario farmers. That will be over and above the $435 million that's available to our farmers for disaster relief. It has indeed been a tough summer for our farmers and we want to make sure we do all we can for those farmers in this year of bad growing conditions and poor commodity prices.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much, Minister. I have to admit right now that I was certainly impressed with the reception you received at the international plowing match. I thought it was a very respectful interchange with the leaders of our agricultural community, with you taking the time to listen to their positions. It's just as important to my constituents in the riding of Durham that you are indeed listening and working on their behalf.

I can tell you that Anna Bragg, the president of the Ontario Corn Producers' Association, who lives in my riding of Durham, is in constant communication with her members on the whole issue of low yield and prices. They are very concerned, as I've repeated, that crop insurance and the compensation of farmers is absolutely critical to the survival of that sector of our economy.

Minister, perhaps you could broaden it out here. It's not just you who can solve the problem. What are the federal cousins saying to you? Are they there, supportive of the issue, or are you doing it on your own?

Hon Mr Hardeman: The honourable member mentions the international plowing match. I wanted to tell the House how disappointed I was that I was unable to win first prize in the plowing, but I want to say that the member from Wellington, being at home-and I'm sure he had previously practised-indeed won first prize. I think that's worth noting.

I do want to say that Ontario has been a strong supporter of the market revenue insurance program for the grain and oilseed industry. Indeed, it is the only province in Canada that still maintains that program. I want to inform everyone that that is the saviour of the grain and oilseed industry this year as the commodity prices have dropped the way they have. Earlier this year, we were able to send out $35 million in an interim payment to help the grain and oilseed industry. As we speak, AgriCorp is sending out another interim cheque to pay another 30% of that money to those farmers.

Hopefully, by the end of the year we will be sending out another $17 million. In fact, there will be $115 million distributed through the market revenue insurance program for our Ontario grain and oilseed-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm afraid the minister's time is up. New question.

CANCER CARE

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, I want to ask you again today if you will, as an emergency measure in order to save lives, agree to cover the cost of rectal and uterine cancer patients to receive out-of-province radiation treatment. There's a consensus in the cancer community that if you added rectal and uterine cancer patients to the breast and prostate cancer patients who are currently covered, you would have an immediate impact in decreasing waiting times here in Ontario.

Will you take this positive proposal to save cancer patients' lives and act on it today? Will you agree to include rectal and uterine cancer patients in your program for out-of-province treatment?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): As the member knows, the decisions to make referrals out of province are decisions that are made by Cancer Care Ontario. We will continue to depend upon them to make those clinical decisions as to appropriate referrals.

Ms Lankin: Minister, the only cancers that are eligible for re-referral for you to pay the cost at this point in time are breast cancer and prostate cancer. I've raised this question with you again, but let me rephrase it: Why won't you include rectal and uterine cancer patients in the out-of-province treatment program? I raised it last December and this past spring; I raised it three weeks ago.

I've been told by people in Cancer Care Ontario and at Princess Margaret that this simple and positive proposal would have an immediate impact in decreasing the waiting list, that those patients who can't travel would have access to more treatment here because there would be other people eligible to have their costs covered and they would move. It could save lives.

Despite all your claims, you have contributed to this crisis. I'm putting forward a positive proposal now. Minister, this is a question of life and death for many people who are on that list. Please tell us clearly, why won't you add rectal and uterine cancer? Why won't you take this simple step to save cancer patients' lives?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Again, Cancer Care Ontario is responsible for making decisions related to the treatment of cancer in Ontario. Certainly we always would welcome any advice that they would have in order to further enhance treatment and services for people in this province.

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT STAFF

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Minister, last Thursday you were trotted out by the Premier's staff to the Toronto Brickworks to make what could only be described as an embarrassingly pathetic reannouncement of a so-called SWAT team consisting of half the number that was recommended, a mere 65, who your own personal staff admitted will not be permanent employees and will likely be staff yanked from other important positions within the ministry which will be left unprotected-this to deal with a political crisis rather than an environmental crisis.

After firing one third of your staff and slashing almost 45% of your budget, the Premier and the Chair of Management Board have once again thrown you to the wolves by giving you fewer than half the staff recommended for your much-touted SWAT team.

Does the minister really expect the people of Ontario to believe that 65 staff yanked from other important jobs, 65 temporary staff, can possibly replace the over 900 employees turfed out the door of the MOE and the 45% of the budget that has been taken away from you?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): I know the member opposite wishes he had actually been there for the announcement, because he would have known that there are 30 new inspectors to be hired, nine new investigators, plus program analysts, engineers and scientists, 65 new staff, keeping a campaign commitment in our Blueprint document to have that SWAT team up in place. That's a very important first step. I remind the member opposite that we also have an entire review of the ministry under way right now, headed up by Valerie Gibbons, a former deputy within the civil service.

But the fact of the matter is this environmental SWAT team is going to target emerging environmental issues and go after those deliberate repeat offenders. It's going to go after the people whom I know he also wants to see nabbed, and those will be the midnight dumpers who are dumping and polluting our environment in Ontario.

Mr Bradley: I see what the Minister of Education is talking about when she says there's a problem with math, because the Minister of the Environment seems to think that 65 people pulled from other jobs within the ministry are somehow supposed to replace the over 900 people who were sent out the door by the Chair of Management Board, the Premier and his staff.

We all recognize this announcement you had is simply a public relations ploy orchestrated by Paul Rhodes, your $2,000-a-day spin doctor, taxpayer-paid advertising guru. We recognize as well that your own ministry, in a document which was leaked, said you're now inspecting only 10% of the environmental problems in this province and the document says that you will require in excess of 500 staff to be able to do the job properly. That's right in the document the Premier referred to as a phony-baloney document, which proved to be a genuine government document.

I ask the minister, would it not be better to bolster the investigations and enforcement staff, keep them totally independent, make sure that these are new additional staff, and would it not be wise to hire those 900 people back who provide the supplementary work for all the investigations and prosecutions that go on in this province instead of engaging in some kind of public relations exercise orchestrated by Paul Rhodes?

Hon Mr Newman: What the member opposite is asking us to do is not to keep our word, and that's not what we're all about in this government. In fact, the Blueprint document clearly stated that we would hire an environmental SWAT team to protect the environment here in Ontario. That's what it said. I know that their campaign document made no such reference to anything like that.

The announcement last Thursday was an important first step: 65 new staff-30 inspectors, nine investigators in addition to program analysts, engineers and scientists.

What we want to do with the environmental SWAT team is to hire the brightest and best people who will be out there to protect the environment on behalf of the people of Ontario. It's a Blueprint commitment in our election document. It's an important first step: 65 additional staff in this newly created separate unit within the Ministry of the Environment.

PREMIER'S RESEARCH EXCELLENCE AWARDS

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): My question is to the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology. Minister, as the global marketplace is increasingly becoming technology-driven, it is important to ensure that Ontario remains a leader in scientific research and job creation. As you know, we must be ready to meet the challenges of the future, and we will have to bring investment into the province. To accomplish that goal, Ontario must have the best and brightest researchers working toward developing innovations that will benefit us all.

Minister, could you tell the House what the Mike Harris government is doing to attract researchers and to make sure that they have the resources they need to make sure that Ontario has a leading edge?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): One of the innovative programs that the Premier introduced some 18 months ago is the Premier's Research Excellence Awards. Over the past year and a half, 243 of our best and brightest researchers from our hospitals, our universities, our colleges and other public institutions have received $150,000. That money is not used for personal use; it is used to attract researchers to their research teams and to build international excellence in research.

It's the only program of its kind in Canada, it's the largest awards program in Canada, and on December 3 the Premier will personally thank this year's recipients of the Premier's Research Excellence Awards.

If the engine of economic growth is brainpower, then Ontario is leading our country in attracting people back from the United States. So far, we've had almost 18 individuals come back from the United States because we are providing the necessary resources for them to do world-class research right here in the province of Ontario.

Mr Mazzilli: I'm sure the tax cuts have helped bring some of these people back to Ontario. Minister, can you tell me specifically how the Premier's Research Excellence Awards will benefit the London area and the researchers at the University of Western Ontario?

Hon Mr Wilson: The University of Western Ontario alone has been the recipient of 21 Premier's Research Excellence Awards, people like Dr David Holdsworth of the John P. Robarts Research Institute. Professor Holdsworth and his research group have developed an X-ray imaging system that produces three-dimensional images of the blood vessels in the brain. This work is going a long way to help prevent strokes, and the findings of that research will hopefully be disseminated across our hospitals and our health care institutions in the near future so that all the people of Ontario can benefit.

Last week, we gave an award to a young researcher at the University of Waterloo. Her name is Dr Stephany Bennett. She told the audience at Waterloo that first her job is to make Alzheimer patients comfortable and then she intends to cure the disease. That's the type of world-class research that's going on, the type of world-class research that I, as Minister of Energy, Science and Technology, on behalf of all members of the House, am pleased to recognize and support in this province.

PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I have a question for the Minister of Education. Minister, the kids are back in school and we're finally back in the Legislature, but those kids are looking, thanks to you and your government, more than ever to the members of this House and to you in particular as the person who has taken charge of education in this province. We're going to be bringing you the problems you've inflicted on some of those kids, but today one very simple issue:

In Toronto and in other areas around the province there are playgrounds missing. There are kids like Kristina Fallows who are standing around literally, not getting exercise, not getting recreation and not being able to develop their social skills, because the equipment is missing.

I want to ask you something very specific, very straightforward. In your responsibility for education, will you act? Will you set up a matching fund so that the parents, the school boards and the municipalities can start to put that equipment back? Will you, from the province's standpoint, match the money they raise and make sure that kids can go out to play? Will you do that immediately, Minister?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): I'm a little surprised this would have been the member's first question, because on the one hand this is the party that keeps saying that we've taken away decision-making responsibility from school boards. This is a particular situation where this school board, in their wisdom, made this decision. Now he is asking us to take this responsibility away from this school board and come in and second-guess what they did. I don't think that's appropriate.

School boards across this province have had the responsibility for making decisions around equipment, accommodation and health and safety issues. That's been there for many, many years. We pay substantial amounts of money to school boards to help them do that. As a matter of fact, there were several hundreds of millions of additional dollars to the Toronto board and other boards to give them flexibility in how to do that.

I don't think it's appropriate now, when they've made a decision, when the community has now objected, to come running to Queen's Park and ask for special treatment for Toronto that is not available to the other school boards in this province.

Mr Kennedy: There's the key to what's wrong with education. The minister will take no responsibility. The kids don't care if a mistake was made and they don't get to play; their equipment is missing.

This minister and this government have cut $1,400 per student in Toronto. They plan to cut another $750 per student in Toronto. There is no money at the school board.

Minister, you and I could walk to Jesse Ketchum school right after this and see there's no equipment there. Will you come and explain to Kristina Fallows at Jesse Ketchum school why you won't take the responsibility you've legislated for yourself? Again, will you put your politics aside? Will you say to the kids that their ability to play supersedes the games, that you will provide matching funds to make sure that playground equipment can be restored, not just in Toronto but in Ottawa, Windsor, Peterborough and other places where the safety of kids caused that to happen? Will you do that today? Will you come with me to Jesse Ketchum School and explain this to Kristina Fallows.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I have been to many schools and school boards across this province that are handling this same issue in a very different way than this particular school board. I would suggest to the honourable member that if some individuals would spend less time fighting politics and more time reading the staff reports that were put in front of them, perhaps we would not have situations like this. The school board and the community are working very hard, with the council, to try to make sure this decision is rectified, that there are indeed facilities for those children, as there should be.

But the honourable member of the Liberal Party cannot, on one hand, sit in here and say I should be giving school boards flexibility to make decisions on their own and then, when they make a decision he doesn't agree with, come running to me and say, "Minister, fix it." I don't think that is appropriate. The community is responding, the council is responding, the board is responding with money they have received from us. I think that is appropriate to make sure these kids get what they deserve.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The time for question period is over.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Very briefly, I know at the beginning you mentioned that you were going to try keep things as tight as possible, and obviously the House isn't always co-operative with that. But I want to bring to your attention again that one of the reasons for that is that we have a fourth question, and when we don't get to it, people like the VON workers who are here today and want to hear their question put on the floor, do not get an opportunity.

I might suggest, Speaker, if it's helpful at all, that I as the House leader for the NDP caucus would certainly be willing to meet with you and the other House leaders to determine any kind of procedural mechanisms we can give effect to that would let us get to that fourth question.

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Earlier today, the leader of the third party indicated that a group wished to meet with representatives of the government and that that meeting had not occurred.

I would like to correct the record. In fact I did meet, on behalf of the government, and passed the information-

The Speaker: The member can't correct somebody else's point of order.

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislature. It deals with the northern health travel grant.

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

This is the first 100 of 51,000 petitions we will be presenting to the Ontario Legislature until this health care apartheid is corrected.

SAFE DRINKING WATER LEGISLATION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Thousands of people across Ontario have signed a petition in support of Bill 96, the Safe Drinking Water Act, which will be debated on Thursday morning at 10 am. The petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the people of Ontario have the right to receive clean and safe drinking water; and

"Whereas clean, safe drinking water is a basic human entitlement and essential for the protection of public health; and

"Whereas the people of Ontario have the right to receive accurate and immediate information about the quality of wate