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

May 7, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2001-May-07 (PDF)

L011 - Mon 7 May 2001 / Lun 7 mai 2001

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 7 May 2001 Lundi 7 mai 2001

WEARING OF PINS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

RURAL HEALTH SERVICES

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

EDUCATION FUNDING

EDUCATION WEEK

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

LABOUR POLICY

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS WEEK

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

ACADEMIC TESTING

VISITOR

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY AND SUPPORT ARREARS ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 Loi de 2001 modifiant la

Loi sur les obligations familiales et l’exécution des arriérés d’aliments

DAY NURSERIES AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 loi de 2001 modifiant la

loi sur les garderies

OAK RIDGES MORAINE CONSERVATION, PROTECTION AND PROMOTION ACT, 2001 LOI DE 2001 SUR LA PRÉSERVATION, LA PROTECTION ET LA PROMOTION DE LA MORAINE D’OAK RIDGES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

TOURISM AND TRADE

NORTHERN ECONOMY

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

northern economy

HOCKEY GAME

ORAL QUESTIONS

TUITION FEES

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

WATER QUALITY

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

EDUCATION FUNDING

TUITION FEES

WATER QUALITY

TRANSPORTATION STUDY

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS WEEK

POLICE COMPLAINTS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

CHILD CARE

HORSE RIDING SAFETY

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

BRAIN TUMOURS

HEALTH CARE

PROTECTION OF MINORS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

WATER QUALITY

SAFE STREETS LEGISLATION

IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE POLICY

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

POVERTY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO STUDENT LOAN HARMONIZATION ACT, 2001 Loi de 2001 sur l’harmonisation des prêts d’études de l’Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

WEARING OF PINS

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: A project has been developed in Brant, through Rhonda Hertel of the Brantford Nova Vita, to raise the profile of our fight against domestic violence. This project been affirmed by all of the province of Ontario. I seek unanimous consent to wear the daisy pin for the month of May.

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

I thank the member.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

RURAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): It will come as no surprise to members of this Legislature that there is a very serious difficulty—in fact, it’s a crisis—facing many communities, large and small, across Ontario in terms of getting and keeping family practitioners. At last report, I am told there are over 100 communities in southern and northern Ontario that do not have an adequate number of primary care or family physicians.

I want to draw to the attention of this Legislature today a wonderful part of my constituency, the Bromley-Whitewater, Cobden-Beachburg area of central Renfrew county, where we have today over 8,000 people, many of them older, all of them without the benefit of public transport, and none of these people has in their community—and the community might be Beachburg, it might be Cobden, it might be Foresters Falls, it might be La Passe, it could be Douglas—a resident full-time family practitioner. In fact, we have two physicians coming in from Shawville, Quebec, to meet the community needs.

There is a wonderful group of people, the Whitewater-Bromley Community Health Centre group—ably led by people like Dave Shields, Liz Cobb, Bonny Johnson and Dave Stewart, to name but four—who have been working very diligently and creatively to draw to the government of Ontario’s attention the urgent and pressing need to respond with funding for a community health centre to that part of the Upper Ottawa Valley.

I am here today to support their request and to underline the urgency of this matter affecting so many of my constituents.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I would like to introduce Mr Mike Murphy, vice-president of Management and Training Corp, the company which has been selected to partner with the government on the operation of the Central North Correctional Centre at Penetanguishene in my riding of Simcoe North. Mr Murphy is in the audience.

Management and Training Corp operates 13 correctional facilities and 23 Job Corp Centres in the United States, Australia and the Marshall Islands. MTC has a long history in training and rehabilitation, which they have put to excellent use in their correctional facilities. They offer extensive personnel development programs in areas like substance abuse, life skills, anger management and crisis intervention, to name a few.

Public safety is at the forefront of our government’s work to transform the Ontario correctional system. This new facility is the cutting-edge example of this. All inmate-occupied areas are surrounded by a 16-foot fence topped with razor ribbon. All doors, windows, locks and perimeter walls are built to maximum security standards. The most advanced security technology is used throughout this facility, which is built in a pod design so that inmate movement is limited and safety is achieved for both correctional staff and the public. These security features and the reputation of Management and Training Corp will make this facility a success.

The government continues to be committed to ensuring that the tough performance standards we have established for Ontario’s correctional facilities are met regardless of who is operating these facilities. It is important, therefore, to stress the word “partner” in this announcement, since our government will continue to play a strong role in running and monitoring this ultra-modern, ultra-safe facility. We believe that MTC will meet our tough standards and at the same time help us fulfill our commitment to the people of Ontario.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): One of the truly alarming realities of the past 10 years has been government’s continuing decline in support for Ontario’s community colleges. The sad fact is that while enrolment has increased by 35% over that time period, the per student funding provided by the province has actually decreased by 40%, leaving Ontario’s college students the most poorly funded in the country.

This is particularly frustrating for Confederation College in Thunder Bay. While the college has been a remarkable success story, graduating 20,000 students over the past 30 years, the vast majority hailing from northwestern Ontario, the college is now facing critical decisions in order to balance its budget. Unless improved funding is forthcoming in this week’s budget—funding that recognizes the $1.7-million shortfall between basic needs and the presently anticipated funding—the college may be forced to eliminate their deficit by cancelling programs, raising tuition fees and eliminating several key staff positions.

Any or all of these options can be avoided if the province recognizes the dreadful impact their yearly cuts in funding have had on this vital educational institution, cuts that have totalled over $17 million since 1994, resulting in a 40% loss of full-time staff.

Today I’m calling on the Minister of Finance to acknowledge the need for improved funding for Confederation College in Wednesday’s provincial budget. I trust, Minister, that you recognize that Confederation College is one of the key contributors to the sustainability and growth of the region. But in order for it to continue to grow, the province must not allow it to fall further behind. We hope, Minister, that you’ll recognize that need on Wednesday.

EDUCATION WEEK

Mr John O’Toole (Durham): Today marks the start of Education Week in Ontario, an annual celebration that gives schools across our province the opportunity to showcase their students’ talents and recognize the past year’s achievements.

This year’s Education Week theme is “Excellence in school performance, excellence in student learning.” It’s a theme that encapsulates our government’s commitment to education reform. This government knows that our public education system has much to be proud of. Excellent and committed teachers, staff, parents and volunteers directly contribute to the quality of education in our schools across Ontario, like the new school located in my riding, Durham: St John Bosco Catholic school in Oshawa.

In today’s world, education is the key to success. It gives young people the knowledge and skills needed to compete in the global economy. Education helps them become responsible and active citizens. It’s one of the keys to Ontario’s prosperity.

Just two weeks ago, students from John M. James public school in Bowmanville participated in a nationwide event called Canadian National Marsville Link-up Day. This Internet event was designed to teach students how to apply their knowledge, imagination, communication and technical skills with others across Ontario and indeed Canada.

Our student-focused education funding, the curriculum, student assessment and safe schools will help to ensure that we achieve excellence in school performance and student learning. Today, at the start of Education Week, my colleagues and I pledge our continuing commitment to ensuring that our students get the best possible education. I would like to thank our teachers, parents and students for their committed search for excellence.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): I’d like to provide the Minister of Health a reality check regarding the nursing situation reflected in my riding and across this province. I received this handwritten letter from a registered nurse who works in the emergency ward at the Sarnia General Hospital. This letter describes a situation that has been compounded by the Harris government policies on hospital restructuring. She writes:

“Help! My ship is sinking and I need a life preserver. I work as a registered nurse in the emergency department at the Sarnia General Hospital.

“The lack of beds for our admitted patients is exhausting our own department’s resources. Staff are working extra long hours and extra shifts to care for the overflow.

“Not only is patient care and safety suffering, but also the nurses can’t keep treading water. They’re all too tired.

“I have never been this dissatisfied in my nursing career. In 1995 I was laid off due to bed closures. With my American licence I worked for a short time in the US. My philosophy is that, if you’re not happy, do something to change it. Does this mean that I have to leave work in Ontario again? I hope not. Hopefully this letter will help bring about improvements. I’d like to stay put in Ontario, but I’m ready to go. Thank you.”

Yet another nurse leaves Ontario.

LABOUR POLICY

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): The real games being played at Casino Niagara are the games being played by this government in its attack on the security guards at Casino Niagara, who in February of the year 2000 organized themselves into a collective bargaining unit of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union.

This government, with its condemnatory philosophy of workers and their trade unions, has blocked that trade union’s effort to represent those workers and has effectively barred those workers from engaging in any collective bargaining by using the Alcohol and Gaming Commission as a bar to them being certified as a union and to having bargaining rights with the management there.

We’re talking about in excess of a year now that this government has been playing games with these workers—this government, Mike Harris and the Tories, demonstrating that they don’t like working people to begin with, that they like low-income working people even less, and that they, the Tories of Ontario, despise trade unions and their efforts to give working people like the security guards at Casino Niagara a modest right and a modest level of control over their workplace so that their lives can be safer, their jobs can be more secure, and they can be healthier, contributing members of the workplace and the community.

This government has been less than candid, less than straightforward to these workers and to the community. It’s about time they understood that there’s going to be a huge price to pay.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS WEEK

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): This is the first day of Emergency Preparedness Week in Ontario. From May 7 to 13, communities throughout Ontario will participate in activities to increase awareness of emergency preparedness. Emergency Measures Ontario coordinates activities on behalf of the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

This year’s theme is “Reducing the risk—toward safer communities in the 21st century.” It means that everyone—government, industry and individuals—can contribute to community emergency preparedness and help increase public safety.

Six Ontario communities, including my home town of London, Barrie, Cornwall, Hamilton, Port Hope and Thunder Bay, have earned special distinction from the province under the government’s partnerships toward safer communities program.

Emergency Measures Ontario and the office of the Ontario fire marshal launched this program last year to improve public safety in Ontario. The program is designed to encourage communities and industries to develop a plan to prevent and deal with emergency situations involving hazardous materials. No community is immune from disaster. Recent evacuations in Toronto and Ottawa have brought this message home. Everyone has an important role to play in keeping our communities safe.

I invite all members of this House to join me in recognizing the vital contributions that our emergency service providers make in our province.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): Almost two years ago, with people in 102 communities across the province unable to get a family doctor, the Harris government sent out a fact finder to see if there was a doctor shortage. Dr McKendry said we needed at least 1,000 doctors. Almost a year and a half ago, with people in 109 communities now unable to get a family doctor, the government set up an expert panel to look at how to deal with the doctor shortage.

The government has still not released the report of its experts, but late last month the minister at least acknowledged there is a problem. The minister said his government was committed to the development of a new medical school in the north, but he gave no timelines, no money and no indication of whether there would be any first-year medical school spaces.

The minister also announced that his government would streamline the process for accepting foreign-trained physicians. The question is, when? The College of Physicians and Surgeons gave government a plan for speeding up the licensing of foreign-trained doctors almost a year ago. All it needed was some funding for a training and assessment program. We could have had new doctors fully licensed and out in communities practising medicine six months ago if the government had acted last July. So what’s the delay now? Why no details, why no dollars, why no timeline for getting started and why still no indication that this government is ready to fund new medical school spaces?

The Harris government needs to understand the absolutely urgent need for action. We have already had more than two solid years of delay while the problem of doctor shortages reaches truly critical proportions. The expert panel report must be released today. The government must announce that the College of Physicians and Surgeons’ proposal for licensing foreign-trained physicians will be put in place immediately and the government must tell us this week how many new medical school spaces will be up and ready for this September and where the new spaces will be. There is no time and no excuse for any further delay.

ACADEMIC TESTING

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): Once again I would like to recognize the students, parents and educators of Waterloo-Wellington for their achievements with Ontario’s literacy tests for grade 10 students. Each of the school boards that I’m privileged to represent has provided me with information outlining successes and plans to continue to improve student and school achievement.

The Waterloo public school board exceeded provincial averages with notably high results at Elmira District Secondary School and Waterloo-Oxford District Secondary School in Wilmot township. Students at these schools were among the region’s top achievers.

The Waterloo Catholic school board has captured the spirit of ongoing improvement and is undergoing a thorough analysis of how students approach the test and how to improve the process, along with parents and teachers, so that students have the skills they need to function effectively in a more complex working environment.

The Upper Grand school board has advised me that 75% of their secondary schools surpassed the provincial average. They are committed to ongoing improvement in all schools, and for students who may be unsuccessful on the test, they are putting in place remedial efforts to see that those who must retake it can do so with confidence and skill.

Our Wellington Catholic school board also achieved well above the provincial average. I would like to quote the board’s director of education, Don Drone, who said, “These tests have helped us improve student achievement. Each year, our grade 3 and 6 students show improvement on their tests. This is the first time for this test. We expect to see improvement in future years.”

On that very positive note, I commend the trustees, board officials, teachers, students and parents for putting quality first and putting students first.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we continue, we have in the east public gallery Ed Philip, the former member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, who was a member of the 32nd, 33rd, 34th and 35th Parliaments. Would all members please welcome our colleague.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY AND SUPPORT ARREARS ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 Loi de 2001 modifiant la

Loi sur les obligations familiales et l’exécution des arriérés d’aliments

Mr Wettlaufer moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 40,

An Act to amend the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996 / Projet de loi 40, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1996 sur les obligations familiales et l’exécution des arriérés d’aliments.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): Recently, a Divisional Court ruled that the Family Responsibility Office does not have the authority to collect support payments arrears accumulated when families are opting out of using the FRO. While this was created by a loophole in the existing legislation, I feel that the decision is wrong for those recipients. I firmly believe that when an individual fails to live up to a support agreement, the children of this province and their families should not be made to suffer. That is why my bill would specifically make all support payments arrears from the opt-out period enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

I trust that all members of this House will join me in doing the right thing and help children and families receive every penny they are entitled to.

DAY NURSERIES AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 loi de 2001 modifiant la

loi sur les garderies

Mr Lalonde moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 41,

An Act to amend the Day Nurseries Act to allow up to seven children to be cared for in rural areas without requiring a licence under the Act / Projet de loi 41, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les garderies afin d’autoriser, dans les régions rurales, la garde de sept enfants au plus sans devoir obtenir un permis prévu par la Loi.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): The purpose of the bill is to exempt day nurseries and private home daycare agencies that provide care for no more than seven children from the licence requirements of the act if the nurseries or agencies are located in a rural area or in towns and villages with a population of fewer than 3,500.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE CONSERVATION, PROTECTION AND PROMOTION ACT, 2001 LOI DE 2001 SUR LA PRÉSERVATION, LA PROTECTION ET LA PROMOTION DE LA MORAINE D’OAK RIDGES

Mr Colle moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 42,

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 42, 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): As you know, the Oak Ridges moraine is a jewel that stretches from King City to Cobourg. This bill asks for an immediate freeze on development on the moraine until a provincial conservation and protection plan is enacted, based on the 1994 guideline. It also asks that the provincial government promote and encourage local recreational, commercial and agricultural activities that are ecologically sustainable and compatible with the moraine.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Mr Speaker, I’d ask for unanimous consent to move this bill forward to pass second reading. I’d ask for unanimous consent so that this bill and my bill, Bill 29, can pass second reading so that they can go into hearings right away, since both these bills have been before us before.

The Speaker: The member has asked for unanimous consent for the bills to proceed to second reading. Is there unanimous consent? I’m afraid I heard some noes.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I was given a copy of a statement that was to be delivered by the Minister of Northern Development and Mines with respect to promoting growth among all regions and industries in Ontario’s far north. It goes on to outline some alleged initiatives. Now I’ve been asked to give this statement back, and I’m told there is going to be another statement. I’ve now been handed another one. Is the minister going to be doing a statement today on this and, if so, which statement reflects government policy?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): It’s my understanding, in the interests of keeping all members of this House up to date, that the minister did want to make a last-minute change in the statement. So there will be a statement going forward today and I think if you listen to the minister it will be very clear what the clarification is.

Mr Duncan: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: It must be an oversight on the government’s part, but earlier today the Minister of Education made a major retreat on their education policy and we thought the minister would want to do a statement about that in the House. I seek unanimous consent to ask the Minister of Education to address the government’s retreat on education funding.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I heard a no.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Hon Brian Coburn (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): This government recognizes that Ontario’s rural communities and the northern and eastern regions of this province still do not share equally in the benefits of our strong economy. We are committed to restoring this balance so that no matter where you live in this great province, opportunity is accessible.

We have been working toward that goal since 1995, when the Mike Harris government was first elected to office, and we have accomplished a great deal in that time. We have introduced a series of initiatives that encourage the creation of partnerships across sectors, across communities, across regions; partnerships that encourage individuals, businesses, organizations, associations and communities to invest in their own futures.

Programs such as Grow Ontario, the rural job strategy, the rural youth job strategy and, most recently, healthy futures for Ontario agriculture have shown just how effective this approach can be.

Since 1995, approximately one quarter of a billion dollars—$250 million—has been invested in growing the economy of rural Ontario. Well over 20,000 new jobs and opportunities have been created outside our cities and urban centres, and there is still much more to do.

That is why I’m announcing today the details of our government’s plan to promote economic growth among all regions and all industries, one of the 21 steps that the government of Ontario proposes to take to meet the challenges and make the most of the opportunities that await us in the 21st century.

To build on regional economic strengths and to help communities reach their economic potential, the government will introduce pilot regional economic development resource jump teams. These teams will help communities take advantage of emerging opportunities and strengthen their local economies.

Our government will study the Quinte Business Development Centre as a province-wide model for regional centres that can improve access to business and economic advisory services in rural Ontario. Our government will work with Ontario’s farmers and agri-businesses to develop a made-in-Ontario solution to the challenge of maintaining our agricultural competitiveness in the global marketplace.

We are acting on the report of the Task Force on Rural Economic Development—led so ably, I might add, by my parliamentary assistant, Dr Doug Galt—to ensure that all parts of Ontario, including our rural communities, the northern and eastern regions of this province, share equally in the benefits of a strong economy.

We are also acting to make certain that our farmers and agri-businesses not just maintain but in fact strengthen their competitive position in the global marketplace. We’ll do that by working with our agri-food industry to develop and implement a made-in-Ontario approach to address the vagaries of the marketplace and the whims of Mother Nature. Farmers who enjoy some measure of income stability can afford to look for new opportunities, can afford to look to the long term.

Both our farmers and our food processors have told us through our consultations that they understand the benefits to be realized by modernizing Ontario’s food safety laws. Not only will consumer confidence be enhanced, so too will their competitive position in the global marketplace. They are ready to work with us to take the steps that will safeguard Ontario’s share of that global market by making sure Ontario’s food products are of an even higher quality and come with even greater assurances of their safety.

Our government will introduce legislation that will allow for the modernization of Ontario’s food safety laws and regulations in order to continue to protect consumers while ensuring access to markets.

It is a broad-reaching and ambitious plan, and will require a multi-jurisdictional approach if it is to be truly successful. That is why my efforts will be supported by those of my colleagues the Ministers of Tourism, of Energy, Science and Technology, and of Northern Development and Mines. I look forward to working with them and with all of our stakeholders to meet the challenges and make the most of the opportunities that this 21st century will present to us.

TOURISM AND TRADE

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation): Formalizing the links between tourism, culture and recreation opens up a world of possibilities to keep Ontario competitive, to encourage more partnerships between public and private industries, and to enhance economic development and job creation.

The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Recreation has taken aggressive action on multiple fronts to establish Ontario as a world-class, four-season tourism destination. Just as the government of Ontario promotes Ontario internationally as a great place to visit and do business, we also promote a strong quality of life for all Ontarians through recreation and cultural opportunities.

I am pleased to be part of a government that is ceaseless in its efforts to expand opportunities for trade across this province. That is why I am grateful for the efforts of my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Business Services and his predecessor, now the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, for their efforts in securing access to the European market for Ontario icewines. Congratulations to those two gentlemen.

These efforts were rewarded recently with a tremendous breakthrough: the lifting of trade barriers that for years have prevented Ontario producers from sharing their award-winning icewines with a key international market. I am pleased to announce today that the government will build on the achievement of access into the European market for Ontario icewines by pursuing a broadening of that access provision to include the province’s other award-winning wines.

As our efforts to increase awareness of our quality wines grow, so too will our efforts to capitalize on the tourism opportunities that will result from increased awareness of all that Ontario has to offer, especially in the area of agri-tourism. That is why I am pleased to announce today that the government will investigate options for preserving tender fruit land and promoting agri-tourism.

The sustainability of tender fruit lands and agriculture is key to the development of Ontario’s wine, culinary, and agri-tourism industry. As a result, my ministry, working with the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and others, will be developing a plan to ensure tourism development is compatible with agricultural land preservation.

We want to duplicate Ontario’s excellence in agri-tourism on the fields of international competition and community recreation. That’s why I’m pleased to announce that in preparation for our bid to host the Olympics in 2008, and to better compete in international games, the government will conduct a review of amateur sport policy, led by my parliamentary assistant, Frank Mazzilli, the MPP for London-Fanshawe.

Sport and recreation touch lives across our province, from the local arena and recreation programs through to the high-performance athlete dreaming of Olympic glory. Among other objectives, our government will examine ways in which we can encourage more private sector partners to join us in support of community recreation and athletic excellence, and develop strategies to promote sport tourism through the hosting of high-profile amateur and professional events.

Our government is also working to promote excellence and job creation in our cultural media industry, an industry that already employs 60,000 Ontarians every year. That is why the government will set clear goals for cultural industries through the Ontario Media Development Corp in order to enhance, for example, Ontario’s attraction as a preferred location for film and television production. New partners in the book and magazine publishing, sound recording and digital media sectors will join film and television to prepare for the era of convergence as the lines between these industries are gradually broken down by new technology and new opportunities.

Finally, the merger of tourism, culture and recreation presents an excellent opportunity to drive our 23 ministerial agencies to maximize their contributions to Ontario’s economy. That’s why the government will mandate its operating agencies to promote business growth, leverage private investment and enhance job creation.

In closing, I look forward to working with my colleagues to promote growth, investment and job creation across this great province.

NORTHERN ECONOMY

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I was delighted when I listened to the recent speech from the throne. In step 7 of its plan, this government clearly enunciates its goal to see economic growth in all regions of the province. At the same time, this government recognizes that some regions have not shared equally in recent growth and prosperity. We know that northern communities face unique challenges. Severe weather conditions, long distances and sparse population can make doing business in the north a challenge. This is particularly true in Ontario’s far north.

The far north covers the northern 40% of the province of Ontario. It is the ancestral home of 30 First Nation communities. It represents a storehouse of untapped economic potential, with opportunities in mining, forest products, tourism and energy development. The people of this vast land must share in the prosperity that will be the legacy of this government.

But in order for this to happen, there are many challenges to overcome. First nation communities, which make up most of the 13,000 residents of the region, increasingly see the economic potential from developing far-north resources in an environmentally sound, sustainable manner. The people of the far north want the chance to build healthy, prosperous lives for their children and grandchildren. More and more they seek fruitful partnerships with private industry and the provincial government as well as the federal government.

At the same time, they are concerned that development occurs responsibly and in a manner that is sensitive to environmental, cultural and heritage values. The Ontario government understands and supports these aspirations.

That is why I am announcing today that by moving to open up the far north to mining and resource activities, the government will create more opportunities for the residents and help aboriginal communities become more self-reliant. We are working hard to create an environment in which economic activity can flourish by continuing to enhance transportation, telecommunications, health care and community development.

We have worked with remote First Nations communities to bring electrical power to their homes, meeting places and businesses and to upgrade plumbing. We have helped communities to mitigate the higher cost and challenges of distance by investing each year in a network of winter roads. We have introduced major initiatives that will open doors for new employment and economic activity by strengthening our forest products industry and creating exciting opportunities in tourism. At the same time, we have moved decisively to make Ontario one of the best places in the world for mineral sector investment.

While these are significant achievements, we note that there is still much more to do and we are committed to working with First Nations to build strong, healthy, self-reliant communities across Ontario’s far north. Over the next weeks and months we will bring you further details on this initiative.

I look forward to working with the communities of Ontario’s far north to make these dreams a reality.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): In October 1997, our government established the Ministry of Energy, Science and Technology, with a mandate to make Ontario one of the leading jurisdictions in the world for research and innovation.

I report today that the ministry is well on its way to fulfilling this mandate and intends to make Ontario the best North American jurisdiction for research, development and innovation and for the jobs and prosperity they bring. In this regard, the ministry is currently looking at a series of performance indicators to better measure our success in achieving this goal.

Innovation is not new to Ontarians, as our history and past economic accomplishments have shown. Innovation is defined as our ability to use science and technology to find new solutions and generate new business opportunities. Innovation is fast becoming a do-or-die component of economic success.

The pace of economic change today means that we can no longer rest on our past accomplishments, otherwise we will be overtaken by our global competitors. The ability to develop and commercialize new technologies, products and services and bring them to market right here in Ontario is the key to maintaining and strengthening Ontario’s competitive position in the new economy.

To encourage and support science, technology and innovation, our government has taken an approach that avoids picking winners and losers. Instead, our approach has been to concentrate on creating the right climate to retain and attract business and investment, particularly in the knowledge-based or R&D-intensive new economy industries.

Last year’s provincial budget yet again illustrated this government’s continued commitment to building one of the most competitive jurisdictions for business, investment and job creation in North America. The corporate income tax cuts, the capital gains inclusion rate reduction, and the employer health tax exemption for eligible R&D-intensive companies—all announced in the 2000 Ontario budget—reflect the government’s strong commitment to strengthening Ontario’s competitive fundamentals for research and development and commercialization.

We are clearly well on our way to building a high-value-added, innovation-based economy in Ontario. We all know that this is key to our future success and prosperity and to maintaining the high quality of life we have come to expect in this province. So I am proud to announce that the government will continue to foster new partnerships between business and research institutions to spur innovation through the commercialization of new ideas. The government has set the goal of making Ontario the third-largest home of the biotechnology industry in North America, and will work hard to achieve that.

In addition to the $20 million our government has committed to creating biotechnology commercialization centres in Ottawa, London and Toronto, we have made significant investments in research through initiatives such as the $550-million Ontario Research and Development Challenge Fund, the $750-million Ontario Innovation Trust and the $85-million Premier’s Research Excellence Awards.

Finally, I am proud to announce that the government supports and fully endorses the Canadian effort to have Ontario host the ITER international fusion energy project. The government is confident that, in competing against Japan and France, Canada can win this bid, which is awaiting formal submission by the federal government. Ontario long ago indicated a willingness to commit $10 million per year for 30 years, each and every year, to this important scientific initiative, and we urge the federal government to commit to financial support for the project and to submit the bid.

If Canada’s bid succeeds, this research and development project would bring to Ontario 250 of the brightest minds in nuclear energy science, help diversify Ontario’s high-tech industry, and inject billions of dollars into the provincial economy over 30 years.

I am pleased to reaffirm our government’s commitment to consolidate Ontario’s position as a global leader in research, development and innovation. The resulting jobs and prosperity will help fulfill our goal to make Ontario the best jurisdiction in North America in which to live, work, invest and raise a family.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Responses?

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): Finally some recognition to the important industry of agriculture by this government, because it’s certainly obvious that agriculture is something that has not been very high on the priority list of the Mike Harris government.

This government needs to recognize first and foremost that if you want to have a thriving agricultural industry and you want to see things happen in rural Ontario, you have to get behind and support that agricultural industry. That hasn’t been happening.

It’s positive, though, to see the made-in-Ontario initiatives that the minister is going through, because I think the minister and the government and eastern Ontario farmers have been looking across the border to Quebec and have seen the commitment that for over 25 years the Quebec government has made to agriculture. That commitment is in excess of $300 million a year to safety nets alone, almost the entire OMAFRA budget in this province. I certainly hope there is going to be that financial support as we look for a made-in-Ontario solution to the safety net crises facing this province, that the minister has the dollars behind him if he’s very serious.

The minister talked about working on a goal, but this government and Mike Harris promised in 1995 that there would be no cuts to agriculture. What we’ve seen is an over 40% cut in the agricultural budget. Where agriculture once was 1.2% of the provincial spending, it’s now one half of 1%. There are rumours flying that we’re going to see more cuts to agriculture in this budget. That’s just not comprehensible and is no commitment to agriculture in this province.

They talk about food safety. It’s very good, it’s very important to have food safety, to ensure that the public has confidence in the food that we eat and consume, but it’s no good if there’s not going to be anyone there to enforce and inspect. We’ve seen cuts and cuts in the inspection end within food safety.

The animal health lab at the University of Guelph plays a vital role in ensuring the quality of the livestock herds of this province, but this is a government that forced the animal health lab to go out and do private fundraising. This is a government that forced the animal health lab to go out and purchase used equipment. That’s no commitment.

It’s interesting too to hear the Minister of Tourism talk about the tender fruit industry and Ontario wines. I hope that the Minister of Tourism works with the Minister of Agriculture and starts lobbying—and I’m certainly prepared to work with you—the federal government to deal with the serious plum pox sharka virus issue that’s facing the farmers in the Niagara Peninsula.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My response is to the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology to say that our future does depend on our ability to compete in terms of brainpower, and I would say that the government made a fundamental mistake in cutting support for our post-secondary education. It’s now 15% lower than when Premier Harris became the Premier.

I think also that if we want to look at how we’re going to compete long-term—we’re now the most export-oriented jurisdiction in the world, but the government has chosen to compete on the basis of lower taxes. I gather the budget on Wednesday will commit Ontario to corporate income taxes 25% below neighbouring US states.

In my opinion, the way we will win the long-term economic battle is not by attracting business to come here because we’ve got lower taxes—“Come here because we’ve got competitive taxes”—but “We are clearly the best jurisdiction where you’re going to find the best possible workforce.” That means an investment in science and technology in our post-secondary education, not competing on the basis of 25% lower corporate income taxes.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): It’s perhaps breaking new ground when I hear a minister congratulate the federal government for the initiatives it has taken. Of course, I happen to agree with the minister today when he talks about the federal government’s initiative on their bid for the Canadian effort on the international fusion energy project and fully endorses it. It’s kind of nice to see somewhat of a change of heart, that in fact they’re seeing the federal government do something to their liking.

When I look at the announcement—it’s not really an announcement; I guess it is a statement. It starts off saying, “I’m proud to stand in the Legislature to let the people know the government will continue to foster new partnerships between business and research institutions.” I don’t know where the minister was about three weeks ago, when a number of groupings of high-tech firms in Ontario asked the federal government—have been pleading—to please provide some support for making sure our universities and colleges are strong in the area of technological development.

We are not producing the students who are able to be hired by our companies, and they are needed. That’s why companies have to go far afield. We could produce those, so money should be going into our colleges and universities to hire the professors to train our students so they can work here in Ontario and in Canada.

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Today is an interesting day for certainly one reason. Over a year ago the government commissioned its so-called task force on rural and northern development and now, a year later, they’ve produced a report which has nothing in it. In fact, I would be embarrassed to produce this report because it ignores many of the issues that are out there. We know this is a government that has a real problem in terms of farm runoff. If the government really wanted to address issues, it would be addressing that issue, but we know already that that is another issue this government is going to go out and study further; in other words, delay and do nothing.

Every day the Minister of Energy in this Legislature touts the California version of hydro deregulation and privatization, but one of the things the government doesn’t want to acknowledge is the fact that people living in rural and northern Ontario in many cases are already seeing a degradation of their hydro service. As hydro companies ready themselves for privatization, there are fewer and fewer people out there looking after the lines, looking after the transmission and distribution system, and so more frequent brownouts and brownouts, which last longer, are actually already becoming a reality in much of rural and northern Ontario.

If those two issues had been addressed in this task force, those would have been two very important things that I think people would have been appreciative of hearing. The fact that they’re not there tells us once again that this government doesn’t have a strategy, and today’s series of statements is simply another attempt to reannounce and reannounce something that still isn’t happening.

I want to refer to the comments of the Minister of Tourism when he talks about tender fruit lands and says the government is going to study strategies to preserve tender fruit land. You’re the government that did away with a strategy when you became government. There was a strategy in place. You did away with it and now the problem has become much worse. What’s the government suggesting? Oh, they’re now going to study the problem. You created the problem and you should be on your feet today admitting that.

northern economy

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Then we have the so-called Minister of Northern Development and Mines who gets up. Basically I have to say to him, your announcement today doesn’t answer any of the questions that First Nations have put to this government. Over a year and a half ago, I read in this Legislature a letter from the Canadian president of De Beers, the diamond mining company, which gave very clear advice to your government. If you want to promote mining in First Nations territory, you must negotiate with First Nations a revenue-sharing strategy.

Do we hear anything about a revenue-sharing strategy today? No. They gave you that advice a year and a half ago. De Beers wrote to the minister and the deputy minister and said, “If you want to promote mining in the First Nations territory in the far north, you’ve got to be willing to talk about a revenue-sharing strategy.” You’re not there yet.

I outlined for the Legislature last week the fact there is a growing wood supply gap in northern Ontario. If the minister was really doing something, he would have been on his feet today explaining exactly what the strategy will be to negotiate with First Nations to access timber in the far north, what the revenue-sharing strategy will be, what the strategy will be for land use planning, for environmental protection, for training, for jobs, and what the strategy will be in terms of possible locations of sawmills etc, so that aboriginal people can take

part in that economy. None of that was in today’s statement, which tells us once again you don’t have anything to announce. All of these issues that must be addressed, you don’t have a strategy. You’re simply trying to put forward another superficial announcement to cover over the fact that the real issues aren’t being dealt with.

Finally, if the government really wants to address the issues across northern and rural Ontario, it has got to become much more specific in what it means in terms of a northern Ontario medical school and a rural medical school for southwestern Ontario. Simply announcing in the throne speech that you like the idea, without being able to tell people where the campuses will be, how many spaces will be available for medical students, how many will be reserved for students from the rural areas and how many will be reserved for students from northern areas doesn’t put us any step further. Please, some details addressing these serious problems.

HOCKEY GAME

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We have with us today a typical Ontarian supporting the Toronto Maple Leafs, Doreen Ullman. As you know, the Toronto Maple Leafs are the last team left in Ontario and in Canada in their search for the coveted Stanley Cup. I move unanimous consent that we all give our support to Ontario’s great team as they face the Devils tonight. Go, Leafs, go.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I’m sure all members will be watching intently, and since we won’t be sitting this evening, I’m sure all TV sets will be tuned in to the game.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TUITION FEES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Some very startling information was released today by Ipsos-Reid, and it really is a sad commentary on the state of affairs in Ontario when it comes to colleges and universities.

One of the most important dreams that sustains our working families is the thought that their children will be able to go on to college and university, assuming they’ve got the good marks and assuming that they’re working hard. The Ipsos-Reid survey released today states that 70% of Ontario parents are concerned that their children may not be able to attend a public university, even if they’re qualified, and the reason is simply because they won’t be able to afford to go on to college and university.

Madam Minister, why are you, through your policies, robbing our working families of the dream to send their children to college and university?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women’s issues): I think the greatest problem that this province has in getting the message out is that question: robbing students. The exact opposite is the fact.

We have a plan, a continued plan based on experience from every level of government, that college and university students will have a place if they’re qualified and if they are willing to go on to post-secondary. Even as enrolment rises, we are working on that plan. The plan is to set aside the kind of financial support in all areas for students so that they can move on and have those hopes and dreams that the leader of the party stated.

I don’t know why that kind of question would be asked, because hopes and dreams are a reality for our young people and there will be a place for every qualified and willing student in our colleges and universities.

Mr McGuinty: This is not a matter of messaging. Parents understand what they and their children are going through. They are saying you are robbing them of their dreams to send their children on to college and university. It’s not an issue of messaging.

Your own report, Portals and Pathways, describes in some detail the crisis that you have created. Your report tells us that operating grants for university students have fallen by 29%. Operating grants for college students have fallen by 42%. They also go on to say, “Over the past five years the amount of loan assistance available to students has decreased by $500 million even though tuition has increased substantially.” Your own commission is telling you what we have been telling you and what our parents and children are experiencing: tuition fees have gone up, funding has gone down and there is less money available for our students when it comes to assistance.

I ask you again on behalf of working families: why are you robbing us of the dream to send our kids on to colleges and universities?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: We are preparing for 88,000 more students in our colleges and universities. Last year, with our private sector partners, we set aside $1.8 billion, the highest amount ever in 30 years, to build for this next generation of young people. We plan to have our public sector stronger than ever.

We capped tuition at a 2% increase a year for the next five years so that parents could plan. We have added over half a billion dollars for student assistance. The universities have set aside one third of the increased tuition so that students will have the help they need, and the list goes on.

We have a plan. There will be a place for every qualified and willing student to go on to our post-secondary system.

Mr McGuinty: Mike Harris and his government have had their hands all over our kids’ colleges and universities now for six years and here are the results. After six years, you have produced a system that ranks 59th out of 60 North American states and provinces for investment in post-secondary education. After six years, you have cut altogether $1.4 billion out of the post-secondary sector. After six years, you have still done nothing to deal with the looming faculty shortage. After six years, you have still done nothing to make room for those 88,000 children who are going to graduate all together.

You may be prepared, Madam Minister, to dismiss them out of hand, but is it any wonder that the overwhelming majority of Ontario parents feel that you are robbing them and their children of a dream that sustained them through their daily struggles? Again, why are you robbing our working families of the dream to send their kids to colleges and universities?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: When I attempted to answer this question earlier in question period today, I said that the leader of the Liberal Party does a lot to contribute to the fears of the young people who want to go on to post-secondary education.

We have never been better prepared for this next generation of young people. We are building some 57 new buildings: $1.8 billion in capital infrastructure; $228 million to our access to opportunities program; 23,000 new spaces for students in high-tech programs; $103 million just last year in operating grants for the current academic year—new dollars; $550 million in our Ontario Research and Development Challenge Fund so those young researchers will want to stay in Ontario and Canada and make our universities even more competitive than they are around the world; $750 million—

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. I’m afraid the minister’s time is up.

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Minister, I have a copy of the rules for the northern Ontario heritage fund, and I’m sure that you are familiar with them. One of the rules says, “Projects proposed by an individual business are not eligible.” We now understand that the Premier’s friends got around that particular rule through a bogus non-profit shell corporation.

But there’s another rule that you should also be aware of, Minister, and it says that the “northern Ontario heritage fund ... investment must be necessary to make the project viable.”

Sam Yawney, a Sudbury businessman, has been running a professional golf tournament in northern Ontario for years, and he’s done so without a nickel of government money. He’s proven that professional golf tournaments are indeed viable in the north without government help.

Minister, two clear rules have been broken, and I’m just wondering whose side you’re on here. Are you on the side of working families who are worried about you misspending their dollars, or are you on the side of Mike Harris and his friends, who enjoy special advantage?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I say to the Leader of the Opposition he’s absolutely correct that private businesses are not eligible to receive money from the northern Ontario heritage fund, unlike when his party was the government. They funded money directly to private businesses, including for-profit ski hills. That’s the legacy of the Liberal government.

But it’s my understanding that the Ontario Open Heritage Classic included both pros and amateurs,

whereas Mr Yawney’s tournament is a by-invitation-only golf tournament. His event did not receive the same level of international and national attention.

It is my understanding that Mr Yawney did not submit an application for his tournament to the northern Ontario heritage fund, but should he or anyone else from northern Ontario wish to bring forward an application to the northern Ontario heritage fund, they would of course look at that application.

Mr McGuinty: It’s very interesting watching the minister try to distinguish between a golf tournament that was held in North Bay and another one that was held near Sudbury.

Here are the facts, Mr Minister: we’re talking about two separate golf tournaments. Both were held in the north last summer. Each offered the same prize money. Even the players were basically the same: there were 110 players who were the same in each of those two tournaments. The only difference is that in one case the tournament was run by the Premier’s friends; in the other case, in the case of the gentleman from Sudbury, he was told that he need not even bother to apply.

So I’m asking you again, Minister, whose side are you on? Are you on the side of working families who are very concerned about the fact that you are misspending their taxpayer dollars on the Premier’s friends, or are you on the side of working families?

Hon Mr Newman: In fact, again, my understanding is that Mr Yawney did not make an application to the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. So nothing could be rejected, because there was no application brought forward.

It’s important that there be international and national attention brought to the golf tournament. His tournament was a by-invitation-only golf tournament. In fact, it’s important to note that the tournament that the member opposite is talking about was also held in Sault Ste Marie in 1999 and he didn’t seem to have a problem with that tournament then.

Mr McGuinty: All right, you’re not prepared to pass judgment on a clear contravention of the rules in the past. Minister, you’ve made that perfectly clear. Here’s something else I want to draw to your attention.

In a speech that Mike Harris made to the board of trade a short while back, he said, “You’ve told me that what you want is the infrastructure to support all businesses and all economic activity in the region, not grants that favour one business while excluding its competitors.” In this case Mike Harris’s friends got hundreds of thousands of dollars to operate in direct competition to an honest, hard-working Sudbury businessman. You should know, Minister, that that is wrong.

Again this year these same friends of the Premier are looking for more money. They’re asking you to break the rules again. To be specific, they’re looking for $150,000 more.

Minister, it was wrong then; it is wrong now. Whose side are you on: that of Mike Harris and his friends, or Ontario’s working families?

Hon Mr Newman: The difference between our government and the member opposite’s party when they were in government is that we don’t fund for-profit companies as his party did when they were in office. They funded in 1989 some $2.2 million for a for-profit private ski hill.

But the issue the member opposite speaks about, with respect to the application: it underwent the proper due diligence process. I have a letter from my deputy minister, Cam Clark, indicating that the application met the heritage fund’s and the tourism program’s eligibility criteria and guidelines and, furthermore, that the projects met the key objectives of attracting tourists to northern Ontario and to marketing northern Ontario through national and international television and newspaper coverage.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Cryptosporidium has killed people in North Battleford. Meanwhile the city of North Bay, which has had cryptosporidium in its water, does without a water filtration plant to protect people from cryptosporidium. At the same time, your government has done away with the provincial water protection fund, the only fund available exclusively to protect drinking water. Chlorine treatment won’t kill cryptosporidium. You require a specialized filtration plant, which costs $20 million.

Minister, are you going to restore the water protection fund in the budget this week or are you going to wait until someone else dies?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of the Environment): As the leader of the third party is probably aware, we have replaced that fund with the SuperBuild fund, which is providing money for water and sewers. That is through OSTAR, and that is a $240-million commitment thus far that has been made.

Mr Hampton: Minister, you would know that the SuperBuild fund is being used for all and sundry—in fact, not much of it is going to protect drinking water—and you know there’s not enough money in OSTAR, and municipalities are telling you that.

I want to ask you about the Premier’s comment on April 30 on CFRB radio, where he said, “We don’t have enough money in the treasury to protect the environment.” Minister, please explain to the people of North Bay and Walkerton and other communities that are boiling their water how it is that your government has money for tax cuts for the well-off but no money to protect the drinking water of our citizens.

Hon Mrs Witmer: It’s clear that the leader of the third party is not aware of the new drinking water regulation that came into effect in August 2000. That regulation applied to large waterworks, it applied to public and private waterworks, and it set some very tough standards. In fact, the standards that have currently been set are the toughest of any jurisdiction in Canada.

Again I indicate to you that the $240 million that has thus far been put into the OSTAR program is dedicated to be used to ensure that municipalities can move forward.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Final supplementary.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Indeed we are aware of the regulations that you brought in, Minister, and experts and environmentalists say that they are at best short-term solutions and Band-Aid solutions, that what we need is safe drinking water legislation. They’ve made it very clear that your regulations won’t work. You’re the one who isn’t listening to what needs to be done out there.

I’ve reintroduced the NDP Safe Drinking Water Act, now called Bill 3. In the past you haven’t supported it and you brought in regulations that don’t go far enough. What we’re saying today, Minister, is that you can do one of two things: you can have more tax cuts for the wealthy or you can restore the provincial water protection fund, bring in the Safe Drinking Water Act and rebuild the Ministry of the Environment to protect our drinking water, to protect our air and our health. Which is it, Minister, safe drinking water that doesn’t kill people or more tax cuts for the wealthy?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The member should know that we have indicated that we are very concerned and we have moved forward in a way to ensure that there will be safe drinking water.

In fact, I’ve had an opportunity to take a look at the legislation you’ve introduced and I just want to comment that the bill you’ve introduced does mirror some of what we have in the drinking water protection regulation regarding regular and frequent sampling and testing, public access to records of large waterworks, clear notification and use of accredited labs. We have all that.

However, your bill does not have what we have, and that is stringent treatment requirements for all drinking water, submission of comprehensive engineering reports for all waterworks, a review of certificate approvals every three years and, finally, you don’t require posting requirements for unsafe drinking water.

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, your friend Ralph Klein has had to pay out $4.1 billion of taxpayers’ money in energy rebates because of the rapidly rising cost of deregulated power in Alberta. In California, the state has now had to pay out $7.5 billion in order to access power because deregulation has failed there.

My question is, how much money is the finance minister of Ontario going to put aside in this year’s budget to pay for your scheme of deregulation and privatization of our electricity system?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): There’s no need to put any money aside at this point.

Mr Hampton: This is the Minister of Energy who two years ago said, “California, here we come. California is the place to copy.” Now we see that electricity prices in California have doubled, and doubled again, and they’re having to spend $7.5 billion of taxpayers’ money to cover up the failed deregulation.

Minister, a few weeks ago you would have met with representatives of Abitibi-Consolidated, the largest consumer of electricity in Ontario for their five mills. They would have told you that just the 8% increase you announced earlier this year is going to add at least $15 million to their power bill and they would have told you that it creates major problems for them.

Don’t you think it might be a wise idea to set aside some money to help restructure and move some of our basic industries, which won’t be able to afford to pay these much higher electricity bills?

Hon Mr Wilson: Again, Ontario is not a California or Alberta. The problem of increased prices in those jurisdictions is that they hadn’t built any new power plants in a number of years and they simply are short of power. Therefore, in a supply-and-demand situation, you would expect prices to go up. In fact, it’s a recipe for bankruptcy, and no government in their right mind would go down that road, which is why the honourable member is completely off base.

With respect to Abitibi, let me read to you a paragraph from the letter they sent me a day after our meeting. “Ontario business cannot withstand the inefficiencies of a market that is not truly competitive.” They’re referring to today’s electricity system. “Abitibi-Consolidated has been diligent in preparing for deregulation and will be ready to fully participate,” when it comes. In fact, they encouraged me to open the market as soon as possible to competition.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Education. Minister, over one-half million students lost an entire year of clubs and teams as a result of your stubbornness and your refusal to act in a way that would clearly put our students first.

Today in the gallery is Peter Ramsay, who is student premier for the Ontario Secondary School Students’ Association. He put out a release today and I want to quote from that release. It says, “Ontario students have suffered immeasurably this year. We have lost valuable teaching time, extracurricular opportunities, post-secondary scholarships and morale as a result of changes introduced to the education system. We demand an apology for the suffering that this government has put Ontario students through this year.”

Madam Minister, on behalf of the over 500,000 students who have been affected by your stubbornness and your refusal to put them first, will you now offer them an apology?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): Today the government introduced a significant package of initiatives which represents what I think is an excellent compromise, asking every education partner to contribute, to make a change so that we can have for our children this coming school year—we are giving the school boards more flexibility and the teachers more flexibility and more resources so that we will have more teachers able to do remediation, which is something we know some students need, and also more extracurricular, because that is also a service our students very much need.

The only persons who need to apologize in this particular instance are those individuals who looked the students in the eye and said, “No, I’m not going to do this because I have a political fight with the government,” or “I have a labour fight with the school board.” That’s the only apology those students need.

It’s not fair to those students to have been caught in the disputes that they were caught in. The government put forward a task force which made significant recommendations. We have accepted those recommendations—

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

Mr McGuinty: We thought the minister had somehow transformed into a kinder, gentler minister who’s prepared to put before her a peace offering and to work with teachers, but the old Janet is back. Let that be very clear. She’s here to start fighting once again.

One of the downsides of your solution is the fact that class sizes will now be larger at the high school level. We think that is not a good development. We think it means less individual attention for our students. I am asking you now to reconsider that particular aspect of your solution. I am asking you to ensure that you redraft it in such a way that it does not translate into larger class sizes for our students. We think that if you really want to do the right thing, you’ll put students first throughout, and that means you won’t increase their class sizes. Will you do that?

Hon Mrs Ecker: For weeks, all we heard from the Leader of the Opposition was, “What have you done with the task force report? What a great report. Why doesn’t the government adopt it?” Well, we have adopted the report, and now the Leader of the Opposition says, “Oh, no, no, that’s not what we should be doing.”

We know very clearly where the Leader of the Opposition was coming from. His so-called solution to this was to take high school students, whose workload had already increased—

Interjection.

Hon Mrs Ecker: If the member from Windsor would be quiet, I could finish the point here.

The Leader of the Opposition wants to take the workload of high school students, who have already been asked to do more with the new curriculum—

The Speaker: Minister, take a seat. The member for Windsor West, come to order, please.

Sorry for the interruption, Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: What the Leader of the Opposition wants to do is to take our high school students, who are already working harder on the new curriculum, and say, “Let’s increase their workload so we can decrease the teachers’ workload.” That is not the solution.

They said, “Accept the task force report.” We have accepted the task force report. We’ve done what our education partners asked for. This is a good—

The Speaker: The minister’s time is up.

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): My question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Business Services. It relates to—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Time is continuing on. It is quiet. There is not going to be total silence. The time is going. If you want to ask a question, ask the question.

Mr Hastings: It will be an attempt. It’s hard when you can’t make your words clear. They don’t understand.

My question relates to the Condominium Act. Thousands of condominium owners in north Etobicoke and across Ontario will be glad to hear about the new guidelines and regulations that are to be issued by your ministry today. What we would like to know is, what is the scope and design of these particular regulations and how will they enhance quality housing for condominium owners?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): Indeed this is an important question for over 288,000 residential units which are condominiums in this province. Who would have thought back in 1967 that we would have had that number of people choosing that style of life?

The Condominium Act and the regulations which are appended to it and come into force today offer condominium owners, both present and perhaps people who would like to purchase one, added protection in terms of the amount of disclosure that’s required by the condominium corporation to the residential owner and to prospective purchasers.

There are new voting rules which are much more in tune with the realities of condominium corporations and the ownership there. For instance, if in fact a condominium is occupied by mostly tenants, the owners of that building, if they’re in a minority, are guaranteed a seat on the board. There are many, many more protections—

The Speaker: The minister’s time is up. Supplementary?

Mr Hastings: Minister, my supplementary relates to the specific benefits of consumer protection arising out of these announced condominium regulation changes.

What I would like to know is, how will these specific guidelines and regulations help working-family condominium owners, condominium boards and, above all, jobs in Ontario—

Interjections.

Hon Mr Sterling: Mr Speaker, I couldn’t hear over the cheers for the member from Etobicoke North exactly the question, but I do know that in his own riding he has many condominium units and has long been an advocate of strengthening the power of the people who reside in them.

This Condominium Act also provides more flexibility toward the creation, the staging of the condominiums, and is indeed a tremendous, tremendous improvement from 1967 and when it was last approved in 1979, and now it’s in effect again.

We have produced a pamphlet outlining the rules and the regulations for all buyers and owners, and they have been sent to each of the 288,000 owners across this province so that they know their rights and they will know how good this act is.

I would like to thank each and every member of this Legislature, and even some opposition members, for their support for their support for this particular act, and lastly, I would like to thank the Deputy Premier for his work on it—

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

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, Ontario Power Generation Inc, the successor company, which is still owned by the people of Ontario, and which holds all of the generating assets of the old Ontario Hydro, reported earlier today its first quarter financial results for the quarter ending March 31, 2001.

Sad to say that operating income is down and down sharply. Net income is down and down sharply. Earnings per common share are down and down significantly. Revenues, interestingly, are up, we are told in part because there has been less competition for Ontario Power Generation in this past quarter.

Anybody reading this report would have to conclude a couple of things: firstly, this report is going to mean more bad news for the people of Ontario because undoubtedly this is going to increase the indebtedness that the people of Ontario have guaranteed. Secondly, and this is my question, what do you and your officials believe will be the impact on electricity rates once the market opens in May 2002, as both you and the Premier have indicated?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): We don’t see that in the report at all. I don’t know who’s doing your analysis these days. They’ve had a banner year at OPG and in fact they’ve been able to provide us with $1 billion to put toward the legacy of debt that your government and previous governments left, and that’s terrific news. It’s one of the largest debt payments we’ve ever made in the history of this province, and it all comes as a result of the strong turnaround management that we put in place some six years ago.

Mr Conway: It’s the same old story. Just months ago we had the Provincial Auditor and we had Energy Probe saying that not a great deal is changing. The indebtedness that is going to be the responsibility of the people of Ontario under your scheme last year went up. This report would suggest that it’s going up again. Costs are up. The rehabilitation of Pickering is higher than expected. The pension costs are higher than expected. Other costs are higher than expected. Revenues are improved because there’s less competition, we are told, than was expected.

You are—we are, in a sense—in a complete conflict of interest. Would you agree to this so that the people of Ontario might get some second opinion, some oversight of this incredibly and extraordinarily important policy? Are you, on behalf of your government, prepared today to agree with me that we should establish, and soon, a select committee of this Legislature with specific oversight responsibility for this so-called new electricity policy so that the people and the taxpayers and ratepayers of Ontario won’t be finding out all the bad news three and five years from now when you’re gone, the rates are up and Ron Osborne is out cashing in very lucrative stock options?

Hon Mr Wilson: Pickering is not over budget. The pension fund is not costing us more money than anticipated. OPG, with its very strong year—I’m going to correct myself—was able to provide to put toward the debt this year property taxes and dividends and corporate income taxes that totalled over $1 billion. These revenues are dedicated to retiring the legacy of debt and liabilities of Ontario Hydro.

Even after these payments, Ontario Power Generation’s cash position is strengthened in shareholders’ equity. We’ve increased our equity by $400 million this year. So the company is not only producing more money to pay toward the debt; it’s in a stronger financial position and better with respect to the books and the shareholders’ position.

Finally, we’re very proud of this company. Whoever told you its position is weakened because of less competition must know nothing about the 93-year electricity system we’ve had in this province. It owns 90% of the generation. It never has had any significant competition. So you’ve given such a complete—

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): My question is for the Minister of Education. As we welcome Education Week in Ontario, parents and students across the province are interested in knowing that the government is taking the right steps to ensure that students receive the best possible education.

Today in Pickering the minister made some significant announcements. Will the minister inform the House as to how these will benefit students in Waterloo-Wellington and across the province?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): I think this week was an appropriate time to announce the package that we did, being Education Week, which gives us an opportunity to celebrate, to congratulate and to thank all of the members of our public education system for the hard work and the excellence that they produce on a daily basis.

What we announced this week were additional resources on top of the money that we announced last month. So we’re looking at $360 million more, new dollars, for our education system. That’s going out flexibly to school boards so they can address local priorities. But we’ve also made some significant changes to make sure that our schools and our teachers have the resources and the flexibility that they need to provide more remediation for those students who might require help with the new curriculum and also to ensure that extracurricular, co-instructional activities, which are very important to our students, can also be provided for our students in all schools.

Mr Arnott: I want to thank the minister for that excellent answer, and I’m pleased to hear that the government is putting students first.

The additional funding that the minister has announced today is welcome news for Ontario parents and students alike. I want to say that initiatives like she talked about today include some welcome news on co-instructional activities, or, as we used to call them, extracurricular activities.

Parents and students in my riding would like to know, how does your announcement advance this issue?

Hon Mrs Ecker: We’ve made a couple of changes, as I said. We’ve put in place more resources that school boards and schools can use flexibly. We have also changed the rules around the definition of the instructional time standard so that things like extra remediation time and on-call for teachers who might be doing extracurricular activities can be part of what’s recognized and funded for our schools. This is a package that not only the task force but also our education partners asked us to put in place. They said this would work.

We are proclaiming one piece of Bill 74, the legislation that says school boards should put in place plans for extracurricular activities in their high schools. We’re also going to be withdrawing the

section of Bill 74 that could have made it mandatory for a teacher in elementary or secondary to do extracurriculars. So we have withdrawn that. I think that’s an exceptionally good sign for the teachers.

This is what our education partners said would work and we’ve been very pleased to put this in place.

TUITION FEES

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Madam, under your tutelage, tuition fees have gone up 60%. Under the same tutelage, deregulated programs such as medicine and law have gone up over 500%—I think it’s 521%. Cuts in funding, cumulatively, have been in the range of two billion bucks. This is well documented stuff. Loans to students, at least to those who qualify for loans, have not kept up with the kinds of increases they have had to suffer under your government with the tuition fee increases in the last five years.

A Stats Canada study revealed that students from lower-income families are choosing not to go to university.

I say to you, as you argue that you have the facts, these are the real facts. Ipsos-Reid says that four out of five parents say that even if their kids are qualified, they won’t make it to university. These people are calling for a $500-million investment in universities. Are you going to listen to them?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women’s issues): Of course we’re listening to parents and students. There are public meetings across this province in our colleges and universities and in our secondary schools. They’re telling us they want a place for every willing and qualified student and we’re telling them we have a plan that will make that happen.

We started with the capital dollars, $1.9 billion, with private sector partners, to create new buildings, the largest increase in capital spending in over 30 years. That is the right thing to do and that was the right place to start.

The second issue we dealt with was student assistance. The questioner is not quite right, because in fact we have increased and we have built in more assistance for our students. So students who are concerned should be applying, working hard, and the student assistance will be there for them.

Mr Marchese: Minister, that’s why I gave you the statistical information, because what you say doesn’t jibe with what is well documented. Tuition fees have gone up, and in the deregulated programs they have gone up 500%. In terms of your funding, cumulatively it’s $2 billion less than before. Your capital expenditures are half of what we used to spend and they certainly will be insufficient to deal with the 90,000 students who are going to come into the system in the next couple of years. You’re simply not listening to people’s concerns.

A majority of Ontario parents are willing to give up their tax cut, so afraid are they that their kids are not going to make it to university. In my view, you can’t betray four out of five Ontario parents who are worried about not being able to afford it. This is not a luxury we are talking about; these people say it’s a necessity. What they’re asking you is to give back the $500 million you have taken out, and give it back in a hurry, in order to address the needs that are there.

We need university professors, we need to accommodate the 90,000 students who are coming aboard, and your plan is not working. It’s not there. I’m asking you to fight for the money we need in the next budget that’s coming on Wednesday. Will you do that?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: This comes from a member whose party increased tuition 10% every year that they were in government.

We have indeed capped our fee increases to a maximum of 2% a year for five years. This is in order that parents can plan. We have the highest rate of participation of post-secondary-education students in Ontario’s history, and that will go up. Some 36% of our 18- to 24-year-olds attend our post-secondary institutions.

We are doing two things that previous governments have never done. We are first of all providing the most financial assistance ever offered to students in Ontario. Not only have we said that our OSAP is there for students who need it, but we have in fact increased that amount. We have enhanced the Ontario graduate scholarship program so that more students will benefit. We have increased the Ontario student opportunity trust fund, which has raised $600 million so that—

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. I’m afraid the minister’s time is up.

WATER QUALITY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment I want to come back to the very serious situation we raised in the House several months ago—it was raised again today—of cryptosporidium in drinking water in Ontario.

You will recall that I think it was Collingwood, Ontario, and Thunder Bay, Ontario, both had episodes of cryptosporidium, and you will remember that there are at least 30 municipalities in Ontario that do not have proper water filtration systems. Cryptosporidium is very serious. In Milwaukee it killed over 100 people in one episode. I think there were 4,000 people hospitalized, about 400,000 people who were sick.

North Bay and these other municipalities are very vulnerable to cryptosporidium because they do not have a water filtration system. The real issue, it seems to me, is the timing of that. You have required it by the end of 2002. Will you undertake today in this House to assure the House that you will provide a special fund immediately to those municipalities so that they can immediately put in place a water filtration system that will protect them from cryptosporidium?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of the Environment): I certainly share the concerns of the member regarding cryptosporidium in the water. We’ve seen what has happened, not only in Milwaukee but also more recently in North Battleford. We express our sympathy and our concern to the people in Saskatchewan.

In our own province, as you know, we do have the toughest water regulations presently. In order to reduce the risk of cryptosporidium, we do ensure that all drinking supplies are filtered and chemically treated. Yes, we have met with North Bay, and obviously we need to work collaboratively with these communities throughout Ontario to ensure that we continue to have the safest drinking water possible.

Mr Bradley: The minister probably recognizes—I’m not convinced her colleagues do—there’s a greater urgency to this matter that she and I would know about than perhaps many of her colleagues in the House. This is why I think there’s a need for an accelerated funding regime for these municipalities. You have Sudbury—it seems to me it’s the David Street pumping station—that does not have a filtration system yet. As I say, there are 30 municipalities. All are vulnerable to attack from cryptosporidium. You’ve had a boil-water in the Premier’s own riding, just as the House came back finally after four months in April, and they had the same boil-water last year.

Minister, it seems to me that the real issue, again, is getting that money to the municipalities immediately so that they can start work on these projects for water filtration immediately. I’m asking the minister if she will undertake at the next cabinet meeting to secure from the person beside her, the provincial Treasurer, the necessary special funding for this particular program. I will support her in this. I know she’ll meet some sharp elbows in dealing with the tightwads who are in the cabinet, those who have money for golf tournaments and huge corporate tax cuts.

Rather than huge corporate tax cuts and golf tournaments, would you convert that money into funding for municipalities to meet the cryptosporidium crisis?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I share the concerns of the member opposite. As he also knows, there is presently no Canadian national guideline for cryptosporidium. There’s no test that can confidently detect it either. That’s why it is important that there are filtration and chemical treatments, and of course they are mandatory under our regulation.

So we do have in place, as I’ve indicated before in the House this afternoon, a $240-million OSTAR program, which is intended to ensure that all of our municipalities have in place a system that is going to provide them with the safe water that we have indicated is going to be absolutely necessary.

TRANSPORTATION STUDY

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Minister, largely as a result of the Harris government policies, the last five years have seen tremendous economic growth in the Niagara region, as well as other parts of Ontario. Because of the impact this growth is having on Niagara’s transportation infrastructure, this government took the proactive step of initiating a transportation needs assessment study in conjunction with the region of Niagara. Can you explain the depth of the study, what modes of transportation are being studied and when we can expect the results of this study?

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Transportation): This needs study came about as a result of tourism pressures, trade pressures and residential development growth in the Niagara region, which has experienced tremendous growth overall. There’s also the concern the government has about the tender fruit lands along the Niagara Escarpment. This particular study is the most comprehensive study ever conducted in the province of Ontario. It’s covering more topics and more territory than ever before. It covers all transportation options being considered, including highway, public transit, rail, even cross-lake ferry.

Hamilton, Haldimand, Niagara, Halton—all of these municipalities have given tremendous accolades to the government for doing this study, and the study should be finished around the middle of June.

Mr Maves: Minister, I’d like to point out to you, though, that some of my constituents have contacted me with concerns about the proposal for a mid-peninsula corridor. With many of our businesses located along the Queen Elizabeth Way, some of my local businessmen are concerned about traffic being diverted to an alternate route and the potential loss of business. As well, some are concerned that existing businesses may relocate to cheap land on the new highway. Finally, with the route bypassing Niagara Falls, shouldn’t the region be concerned about a potential loss of tourism dollars?

Hon Mr Clark: I can understand why some of the businesses in the member’s community might have concerns, but the reality is that tourism is up and growing in Niagara; trade is up and growing in the Niagara region; residential growth is growing in the Niagara region; not to mention that agriculture is growing. At the end of the day, there’s a huge growth and development in the economy of the Niagara region and we have to recognize the impact that is having on the QEW.

As a result of this needs study, the next step we’ll move to is an environmental assessment process, which is a true consultation. All of the public will have an opportunity to consult, the businesses will have an opportunity to consult and we’ll have a better understanding of the impacts of this corridor, both positively and potentially negatively, on this businesses in the community. They will all have an opportunity to come forth and be heard, and we’ll help them as best we can.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I believe she’s here. Here is the minister now. You may continue.

Mr Gerretsen: Minister, as you know, the double-cohort issue has many parents and students who are currently in grades 10 and 11 extremely worried, anxious and upset about their prospects for a post-secondary education. By the year 2003, an additional 90,000 students will be applying for positions. You’ve provided some funding for additional accommodation, but there’s absolutely no plan in place and there’s no additional funding for operating money, which is severely needed by the universities and colleges for teaching staff and other resources.

I have a very specific question of you that the parents and the students in grades 10 and 11 want to know. The question is simply this: what guarantees and assurances can you give to those students who will qualify for admission to colleges and universities on the basis of the same secondary school exiting requirements, including the current range of marks used for admission by faculty that are now in place? Can you give those additional 90,000 students who will be coming on to the scene for colleges and universities that assurance, that they will be judged along the same lines as students currently are—or will, in effect, the entrance be upgraded?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women’s issues): In response to the excellent question from the member for Kingston and the Islands, this is a very serious question that is being asked.

To respond, I’d like to advise the member that the Council of Ontario Universities working group that works with the ministry and with myself has been dealing with this particular issue for quite a long period of time, and we ourselves in our ministry, and I as the minister, have been assured that the range of marks—I think I’m using your words correctly in this regard—and the work of the working group, that these are the same standards that we have now that will carry on into the future.

I invite the member to work with me with regard to a report that we have received. I would be very happy to share it with him.

Mr Gerretsen: We are less than two years away from 90,000 additional students coming into the system. In your own letter to a constituent of mine on February 15 of this year, you indicated that the universities expect an enrolment growth of only 23.6%, and the same thing can be said with respect to the colleges, who expect the double-cohort issue to be with them for five years. Ninety thousand students will not be getting the same kind of educational opportunities as other students are right now. This is an entire lost generation that has come about because of your inactivity and your lack of planning.

What are you going to do today to give assurances to those parents and students who are now in grade 10 and 11 that they will have the same opportunities as their brothers and sisters will have?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I will stand by the numbers in the letter I sent out. The 23.6%, or in that range, is a huge number of students. It’s about 88,000 more students. This is not our number. This is the number that comes up through the system with data which has been collected through the colleges and universities over time. That’s the best projection that they can give to us: 88,000 more students. We did in fact put out $1.8 billion, because buildings take three or four years to build, so now we have $1.8 billion in new buildings, which is where we started.

The member has asked about the standards. We are proud of our standards in Ontario. We want them to be better, if we can make them better. It is, in fact, the universities and colleges themselves that are monitoring all of the implications of the question, and I can assure the member that if he wants to see the work, he’s most welcome.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS WEEK

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Solicitor General. Minister, the province of Ontario is not immune to major emergencies. We were reminded of this just a few years ago by the ice storm that devastated eastern Ontario. In my own riding of Northumberland, annually they celebrate the Float Your Fanny Down the Ganny, which was a major flood in Port Hope. Also, in November 1994, there was a major VIA train accident in the town of Brighton. Minister, what are you and your ministry doing and going to do to ensure that communities in Ontario are indeed prepared for emergencies?

Hon David Turnbull (Solicitor General): I thank the member for Northumberland. Ontario is prepared for threats against public safety. Emergency Measures Ontario is responsible for co-ordinating provincial emergency management and administering the Emergency Plans Act on behalf of the Solicitor General.

Ontario maintains plans for dealing with nuclear emergencies, all hazard emergencies and acts of terrorism. The Provincial Emergency Information Plan ensures that emergency response information is delivered to the public. The ministry’s safe communities program provides assistance and advice to communities to supplement their emergency management plans. This government is committed to ensuring the safety of all citizens of Ontario.

Mr Galt: As we heard earlier, this week is Emergency Preparedness Week. Communities all over the province and indeed the country will be participating. The community of Port Hope in my riding has shown commitment in this area and has reached the “essential” level under the partnerships towards safer communities program, for which they will be awarded a certificate of achievement tomorrow evening. On Saturday, May 12, there will be the annual Emergency Services Day in the village of Warkworth, which is indeed a very informative day for those citizens.

Will you please tell the House and the people of Northumberland about Emergency Preparedness Week?

Hon Mr Turnbull: Emergency Preparedness Week takes place each year in May. This year’s theme is “Reducing the risk: toward safer communities in the 21st century.”

In Ontario, more than 75 communities have proclaimed this week to be Emergency Preparedness Week. Local fire, police and ambulance services have partnered with local schools, hospitals and the media, as well as businesses and community groups. They are all working together to promote the importance of emergency preparedness.

Emergency Measures Ontario will present certificates of achievement to the cities of Thunder Bay, Hamilton, London, Port Hope, Barrie and Cornwall for their outstanding efforts in emergency management.

This government supports Emergency Preparedness Week, and will continue to work with all levels of government and communities to promote a safer Ontario.

POLICE COMPLAINTS

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): My question is to the Attorney General. Last week on the television we saw a disturbing videotape of an Ottawa police officer bashing a woman’s head into the hood of a car. Ottawa police are investigating the incident. It is now being reported that other women are coming forward with similar stories. Increasingly, we’ve seen women strip searched after being charged with the most minor of offences.

Minister, won’t you help us get to the root of these violent and unwarranted police practices? Why don’t you order an independent investigation of the Ottawa incident and show that your government stands behind its zero-tolerance policy against violence and bullying?

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): As the member opposite is likely aware, there is a procedure when there are concerns of the sort that he has referenced, a procedure that involves a comprehensive investigation taking place, and that is underway. In the circumstances, I am not in a position to comment further upon it at this time.

Mr Kormos: Well, Attorney General, here’s a direct quote. Last week you said, “All Ontarians have a right to personal safety and security. Each person should be able to walk along streets without fear....

“Over the past five and a half years, the Mike Harris government has taken great strides”—that’s what you told us—“to ensure that Ontarians can not only be safe but feel safe,” as they go about their lives.

Attorney General, there is a woman in Ottawa who doesn’t feel safe, and didn’t feel safe, and for good reason. This is all a crock unless you order an independent investigation into this videotaped example of police brutality. You have failed miserably on so many fronts to guarantee the safety of citizens, why not partially redeem yourself by calling an independent inquiry that’s within your jurisdiction—you’ve got the power to do it—and tell us who you will assign to carry out this task?

Hon Mr Young: I thank the member for the question, but I’m not quite sure what it is he desires. I thought he believed in the system that we now have in place. I thought he believed in a system that allowed for an immediate and comprehensive investigation to take place by an independent body. I thought he supported that. Apparently I was wrong, but I thought he was against the idea of a politician running roughshod over a system that has been acknowledged and accepted by every stakeholder in this community.

I believe in the system we have, I believe in its independence, and I look forward to allowing it to have the time it needs in order to resolve the issues he has raised in this Legislature.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Before we begin petitions, I would ask all members to join in welcoming our group of Legislative pages serving in the second session of the 37th Parliament.

We have Marko Balan from Parkdale-High Park; Phil Birnbaum from Oak Ridges; Christopher Black from Prince Edward-Hastings; Katie Cook from Niagara Falls; Lisa-Marie Coulter from Vaughan-King-Aurora; Rhianon Cowley-Owen from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell; Sean King from Parry Sound-Muskoka; Kayla Kwinter from Eglinton-Lawrence; Ben Lindner from Perth-Middlesex; Alexander Massaad from York North; Donna Nguyen from Davenport; Mark Niglas from Windsor West; Tyler Nixon from Cambridge; Joanne Paul from Leeds-Grenville; Stephen Prankie from Etobicoke-Lakeshore; Tyler Putzer from London-Fanshawe; Thomas Robertson from Beaches-East York; Claire Schiller from Burlington; Vernissia Tam from Markham; Danielle Vanhie from Elgin-Middlesex-London; and Sabrina Wirz from Kitchener Centre.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There’s a rumour circulating about the use of this House that you may be able to help me with. I notice that there’s a lot of room up in the press gallery all the time, a lot of space up there. Is it true that you are planning to extend the public galleries into the press gallery because of lack of use of the press gallery? Is that true or not?

The Speaker: Rumours are running rampant; that’s not one of them.

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Ontario Legislature. It’s northerners demanding that the Mike Harris government eliminate health care apartheid.

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

“Whereas a cancer tumour knows no health travel policy or geographic location,” which is a fact;

“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 presently exists in the province of Ontario.”

I affix my signature as I’m in agreement with it.

CHILD CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly which reads as follows:

“Whereas the Conservative government under Mike Harris has cut funding for regulated child care spaces in Ontario by 15% between 1995 and 1998;

“Whereas the Conservative government under Mike Harris has yet to implement the recommendations of its own commission’s Early Years report by Dr Fraser Mustard to create a seamless, integrated early years education system;

“Whereas the Conservative government will receive $844 million over the next five years from the federal government for early years development projects;

“Whereas the Conservative government lags behind other provinces in announcing its plans for the $844 million; and

“Whereas other provinces are implementing innovative, affordable and accessible child care programs, such as Quebec’s $5-a-day child care; and

“Whereas the need for affordable, accessible, regulated child care and family resource centres continues to grow in Ontario:

“Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“We demand the Harris government immediately match and earmark a significant portion of the $844 million from the federal government for expanded regulated child care spaces and family resource centres.”

This petition was put together by about 257 people, done by a child care centre in Ottawa, Strath-MacLean, and I’d like to thank the staff and the families for their support.

HORSE RIDING SAFETY

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas an increasing number of Ontarians are turning to horseback riding as a recreational activity; and

“Whereas many of these inexperienced riders are children; and

“Whereas currently there are no minimum safety standards regulating riding establishments; and

“Whereas coroners’ inquests into horse riding fatalities from as long ago as 1977 have called for the mandatory use of riding helmets and boots; and

“Whereas an unacceptable number of preventable injuries and fatalities have occurred while horseback riding;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: to pass into law the private member’s bill introduced by Tina Molinari, MPP for Thornhill, entitled the Horse Riding Safety Act, 2001, in order to increase the safety of horse riders under the age of 18 by requiring the operators of riding establishments to ensure that proper safety equipment is used, and to amend the Highway Traffic Act and make it an offence for any rider under the age of 18 to ride a horse on a highway without the proper safety equipment.”

I affix my name to this petition.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas it has been determined that recent funding allocations to the developmental services sector in the communities of Sarnia-Lambton, Chatham-Kent, and Windsor-Essex have been determined to be grossly inadequate to meet critical and urgent needs;

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

“That the Ministry of Community and Social Services immediately review the funding allocations to the communities of Sarnia-Lambton, Chatham-Kent and Windsor-Essex, and provide funding in keeping with the requests made by families and/or their agents.”

I affix my signature to this petition.

BRAIN TUMOURS

Mr Bob Wood (London West): A petition signed by 14 people.

“Whereas early detection and treatment of brain tumours are vital to survive from this devastating disease;

“Whereas brain tumours strike people of all ages, from newborns to seniors, crossing all economic, social and ethnic boundaries and all walks of life;

“Whereas brain tumours are the most common cause of solid cancer in children; and

“Whereas brain tumour research, patient and family support services and awareness among the general public are essential to promote early detection and treatment of brain tumours.

“We, the undersigned, therefore respectfully petition the Parliament of Ontario to pass a law proclaiming the month of October in each year as Brain Tumour Awareness Month.”

HEALTH CARE

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas we believe that universally accessible, publicly funded health care is sacred and must be protected;

“Whereas Mike Harris intends on turning his back on working families and transforming our system into an American-style, two-tier system where only the rich will get quality care;

“Whereas we believe that Mike Harris has a secret agenda to promote two-tier health care in Ontario and now the secret is out;

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

“Do not turn your back on Ontario’s working families. Fight Mike Harris’s agenda to destroy medicare and fight his plan to create a two-tier health care system.”

I sign my name to this, Mr Speaker, and give this over to Philip.

PROTECTION OF MINORS

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas children are being exposed to sexually explicit materials in many commercial establishments;

“Whereas many municipalities do not have bylaws in place to protect minors and those that do vary from place to place and have failed to protect minors from unwanted exposure to sexually explicit materials;

“Whereas uniform standards are needed in Ontario that would make it illegal to sell, rent, loan or display sexually explicit materials to minors;

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

“To pass Bill 95, Protection of Minors from Sexually Explicit Goods and Services Act, 2000, as soon as possible.”

Since I am in agreement, I’m happy to sign my name to it.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We the undersigned residents of, and visitors to, the county of Prince Edward petition the government of Ontario to recognize that the uncontrolled spread of intensive livestock operations and the field application of liquid manure poses a poses a profound threat to our water, both ground and surface. Additionally, we have petitioned the government to acknowledge that the adverse effects of industrial livestock operations are widespread and have a deleterious effect on our environment, on our air and on our quality of life, and;

“Whereas under the existing laws of the province of Ontario there are no adequate controls directing the operation of such industrial farming operations, and;

“Whereas municipal bylaws are inadequate or non-existent and therefore controls should be exercised at the provincial level, and;

“Whereas the Ontario Environmental Commissioner recognizes in his report the potential for serious pollution of both our air and water from these operations;

“We therefore petition the Ontario Legislative Assembly to expedite the passing of legislation to regulate the operation of intensive livestock operations, specifically the spreading of manure therefrom and to distinguish such industrial operations from traditional farming practices.”

WATER QUALITY

Mr John O’Toole (Durham): I’m pleased to have one of our new pages, Tyler Nixon, who’s from Temple Baptist Christian Academy, take my petition to the table.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas it is a well-known fact that cattle are a significant source of dangerous strains of E coli bacteria; and

“Whereas cattle can be a serious source of degradation to rivers, streams and lakes through (1) defecating in or near the water, (2) breaking down and trampling banks and beaches, and (3) destroying vegetation in riparian zones; and

“Whereas many farmers permit their cattle to enter lakes and streams as a source of water;

“We, the undersigned, respectfully request the government of Ontario to pass binding legislation to establish mandatory setbacks for all watercourses, lakes and wetlands to prevent landowners or tenants from using such watercourses, lakes and wetlands as a source of water for cattle or other animals;

“We further respectfully request that the legislation be drafted in such a way that it cannot be overturned by the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board or any other special-interest group.”

I’m pleased to receive and present this petition on their behalf.

SAFE STREETS LEGISLATION

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): I have a petition from a non-profit organization from the village of Embrun.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas charities such as the Muscular Dystrophy Association of Canada, the Goodfellows, the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, firefighters and many others participate in fundraising on streets, sidewalks and parking lots; and

“Whereas the Safe Streets Act, 1999, effectively bans these types of activities, putting police forces in the position of ignoring the law or hindering legitimate charities; and

“Whereas charitable organizations are dependent on these fundraisers to raise much-needed money and awareness;

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

“We ask that the government of Ontario amend provincial legislation by passing Bill 64, the Safe Streets Amendment Act, 2000, to allow charitable organizations to conduct fundraising campaigns on roadways, sidewalks and parking lots.”

I add my signature to the petition.

IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE POLICY

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads in part:

“Whereas Canada is a nation built by immigrant settlement; and

“Whereas the majority of new Canadians settle in Ontario; and

“Whereas effective settlement programs assist newcomers to integrate quickly into the economic and social fabric of Ontario’s society; and

“Whereas fair funding is an essential component to effective settlement and the federal government is responsible for determining immigrant quotas; and

“Whereas” Ottawa “has entered into an agreement with Quebec to guarantee settlement funding regardless of target fulfillment; and

“Whereas no such agreement exists with other provinces, leading to inequitable settlement funding; and

“Whereas many new immigrants and refugees are denied access to basic settlement services as well as health, education, and ESL opportunities,

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

“That the government of Ontario will demand of Ottawa a similar immigration agreement with Ontario as that in Quebec, continue to encourage change in the immigration process to solve the plight of newcomers and their children, and address the issues of homelessness, hunger and poverty for new Canadians.”

I’m delighted to attach my signature to this petition.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have a petition which reads:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas domestic violence detrimentally impacts on the very survival of thousands of women in Ontario;

“Whereas the sole emphasis on punitive measures ignores that only a small fraction of domestic violence cases get to, let alone get through, the justice system;

“Whereas issues of prevention, investigation and redress of domestic violence need immediate and meaningful attention by the Legislature;

“We petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to:

“(

a) provide funding for second-stage housing, emergency shelters and to organizations concerned with domestic violence;

“(

b) provide training on domestic violence issues for police, lawyers, judges and justices of the peace;

“(

c) address recommendations from the May-Iles inquest regarding the capacity of this province to prevent, investigate and redress acts of violence in the family;

“(

d) promote studies on the causes, nature, prevalence and consequences of domestic violence and on the capacities in Ontario to prevent, investigate and redress acts of violence in the family.”

I will affix my signature to this petition.

POVERTY

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas we are seniors and low-income people finding it very hard to live and pay all expenses every day; and

“Whereas with all the increases in our utilities in the last several months, we no longer can afford to have a warm house, or buy enough of a variety of foods, or buy some of the drugs that we desperately need; and

“Whereas we feel helpless, abandoned, and totally neglected by our own government; and

“Whereas, without some sort of assistance from our government, either in terms of subsidy or lowering the cost of utilities, especially the gas for heating, we will hav