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

May 30, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-May-30 vol. A (PDF)

L063A - Tue 30 May 2000 / Mar 30 mai 2000

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ESTIMATES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WATER QUALITY

CONESTOGA COLLEGE

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

EDUCATION REFORM

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

CRIME PREVENTION

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

FUNDRAISING

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO NATURAL HERITAGE ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LE PATRIMOINE NATUREL DE L'ONTARIO

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

LOI SUR LA CITÉ D'OTTAWA

VISITOR

DEFERRED VOTES

SPECIAL REPORT, INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

WATER QUALITY

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

PETITIONS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

KARLA HOMOLKA

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

ABORTION

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

CAMPING

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

LORD'S PRAYER

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

LORD'S PRAYER

OPPOSITION DAY

HEALTH CARE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: On orders of the day today we have an opposition day, which belongs to the official opposition, the Liberals. We submitted a resolution, according to the rules, about two weeks ago, with respect to what we wanted to debate. In the interim, events at the tragedy at Walkerton have unfolded and I will be seeking unanimous consent to change the opposition day motion that's before the House to read as follows:

That in the opinion of the House, the government, under the Public Inquiries Act, should appoint a public inquiry into Ontario's water supply to consider and report on the safety of the province's drinking water, in particular:

(1) to examine legislation and regulations governing the provision of standards for and testing of drinking water in the province;

(2) to examine the adequacy of the inspection and monitoring programs for all provincial water systems and the role of the province in guaranteeing adequate testing, including funding and staffing considerations;

(3) to examine any other matters that the commission considers relevant to the above terms of reference to ensure that the tragedy of Walkerton does not ever happen again anywhere in this province; and

That the three House leaders are consulted and must approve the government's appointee(

s) to the inquiry, any changes or additions to the above terms of reference for the commission, and the reporting date for the commission's interim and final reports.

I seek unanimous consent of the House to change our motion to this motion for debate this afternoon.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

ESTIMATES

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): Mr Speaker, I have a message from the administrator of the government, signed by his own hand.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): It reads: "The administrator of the government transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending 31 March 2001, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly."

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WATER QUALITY

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): First of all, I would like to express my sympathy to the residents of Walkerton, and I would like to bring to the Legislature's attention another potentially deadly problem in rural eastern Ontario.

Walkerton has shown us that we have to be vigilant in maintaining high standards of water quality. In my part of Ontario I have watched as dead livestock have been removed from rivers that feed our water supply. Recently, livestock have been pulled from the South Nation River by the South Nation River Conservation Authority. This livestock had ID tags removed, and instead of being properly disposed of, were left in the river for someone else to worry about.

The dead stock collectors in eastern Ontario are in very serious financial problems. The market for animal by-products has gone through the floor and the collectors are finding themselves wondering about the future of their business. The Eastern Ontario Farm Recycling Association and other shareholders have repeatedly asked the government to provide assistance so the dead stock can properly be collected in a safe manner. The government's solution: another user fee.

This topic was on the agenda of the MPPs for eastern Ontario and wardens in Victoria county last Friday. Obviously, if they're finding dead animals in the water, the user fee isn't working. A lot of responsibility for collecting is falling on the conservation authorities. By some estimates, there will be 15,000 animals improperly disposed of this coming year.

CONESTOGA COLLEGE

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): On May 18, I was honoured to join the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, the Minister of Health and the members for Cambridge, Guelph-Wellington and Kitchener Centre to announce an historic SuperBuild commitment for Conestoga College. My constituents in Waterloo-Wellington are absolutely thrilled with the $14.2 million in SuperBuild funding which will provide training for an addi tional 1,430 students who will prepare to work in careers including multimedia communications, health sciences and police, fire and emergency services.

This development is the latest in a series of major accomplishments by Conestoga president Dr John Tibbits and his associates. They have put Conestoga College on the map for performance standards such as job placement and private sector partnership. Dr Tibbits was inspiring in his persistence and leadership in bringing together support for this worthwhile investment. I was honoured to have worked with Dr Tibbits in recent weeks. I deeply appreciate the assistance provided by the Minister of Finance in this regard.

I also want to thank the Minister of Economic Development and Trade for the strategic skills investment for Conestoga College which we announced on April 20, which provided $2.6 million for the new information technology training centre. More training for more students is good news for all of us. It means there will be more people with better skills building a higher quality of life throughout Waterloo-Wellington as well as Ontario.

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I rise today at a very solemn time in our province. I want to offer to the families who have suffered the death of a loved one in Walkerton my heartfelt prayers. I know I speak for the entire Liberal caucus when I offer these feelings as a caring community. The people of Walkerton must know by our actions, our words and our deeds that they are in our hearts and that we will assist them in any way we can to help them travel this difficult journey they are on.

I pay tribute to St Patricks Elementary School in Brantford, which started a water bottle drive immediately and shipped this water to Walkerton. We all care.

This morning, I was on the phone with one of the many residents of Walkerton I have spoken to, to hear her story. They are in such a state. They are concerned about the health of their children. They are concerned about the health of their seniors. They are angry, and they are frustrated. They're confused. They need to know the answers to their questions. They need to know that they are listened to, not spoken about. They demand an independent inquiry. This is about the provision of safe, clean water that must never be taken for granted anywhere in the province.

I say with all my heart that some things are best left to the fully funded, publicly run system to provide for the people of Ontario. Safe, clean water is one of them. Let us commit to never allow this to be repeated again anywhere in this province. Again, I dedicate my prayers to the families in Walkerton that have suffered the loss of a loved one.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): My statement is on Bill 74,

an act to change the Education Act, one of the most draconian bills that has been presented in this House in a long time. I want to quote an editorial from the Toronto Star that speaks to this bill, I think, very clearly.

"Bill 74 is an unprecedented attack on basic legal protections that are supposed to apply to everyone .... What else can they be when after-school duties are mandatory `on school days and on days during the school year that are not school days, during any part of any day during the school year, on school premises and elsewhere?'

"This dictum would override `any applicable provisions or restrictions in a collective agreement.'"

It says: "If a government can override teachers' contracts at will, what is the meaning of the sanctity of any contract? ... judges cannot serve certain orders without Education Minister Janet Ecker's permission."

It says, for example, "that a `teachers' bargaining unit or members of that unit' can be changed without teachers having any say.... This bill ... makes Ecker a law unto herself, able to investigate school boards if she has `concerns' and punish them if she `is of the opinion' there's evidence-not proof-of disobedience."

What we have is an accountability deficit. What we need are hearings. What we need to do is hear from people. If you value democracy, you need to demand that.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I'm pleased to recognize the recent announcement made by the Minister of Transportation that will have a significant impact on my riding both for individuals and businesses.

Last Friday, May 26, Minister Turnbull announced the province will invest $33 million in the development of a highway linking Highway 6, which is a major north-south corridor in my riding, to Highway 403 at Ancaster. The importance of a highway link to the 400 series highway network has long been recognized by area people and business leaders as a key driver of economic development. For instance, when the Premier's Task Force on Rural Economic Renewal visited Caledonia in my riding, which incidentally is less than 10 miles south of the Hamilton International Airport, the panel heard repeated requests for the province to accelerate plans to create this link to the 403.

I am pleased to report to the House and to my constituents in Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant that the Mike Harris government is listening and responding to their requests by fast-tracking this highway link, after years and years of study, in order to foster economic activity in southwestern Ontario and particularly in the Hamilton and Haldimand-Norfolk areas. People in the northern part of my riding, in areas like Hagersville and Caledonia, have told me that this highway link is a top priority for them.

I'm very proud to be part of a government that has delivered on this promise.

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I rise to address my concerns and my sympathy and support to the people in the Walkerton area who are facing an unprecedented situation with their contaminated water supply. As I indicated, like all members, I extend my sympathy and my support, and certainly I do so on the basis of representing a community in the Ottawa Valley that's very similar to Walkerton and that part of north Bruce county in southwestern Ontario. But on behalf of the people of Bruce county and the people of my area, and I suspect all Ontarians, we want answers; we need answers.

When talking to my constituents over the last few days, the question they have first and foremost is, "Can it happen here?" I'm sad to say on the basis of what I have been reading and what I hear from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment that we have very good reason to question the safety and the security of the water system of Ontario. We owe it to the people of Ontario, most especially those who have died in Walkerton and those who are sick, to get answers, to get all of the answers. Nothing short of a clear, independent inquiry is going to be an adequate response.

I want to say as one member in this Legislature, we'd better get a full, independent inquiry, because anything less is an insult to those who have died and those who are sick and is going to cause a great deal of upset in this Legislature and beyond.

CRIME PREVENTION

Mr David Young (Willowdale): Too often we learn that property has been vandalized in our respective neighbourhoods. We learn that someone we know has been threatened or assaulted and, worst of all, that a life has been taken in one of our communities. Though these crimes are serious in and of themselves, they are even more disturbing when they're committed close to home.

This government has led the fight against crime and has undertaken many community safety initiatives.

We have passed Christopher's Law, which created the first registry of sex offenders in Canada to prevent the victimization of women and children.

We have introduced community safety zones in which fines for traffic violations have been doubled, with penalties for individuals who commit these offences while fleeing the police.

We have hired more crown attorneys to ensure that the voices of victims of crime are heard in the justice system.

We have set new, tougher standards for parole and for the granting of early release.

As you know, Mr Speaker, we have repeatedly urged the federal government to eliminate conditional sentences and to make some meaningful changes to the Young Offenders Act.

But at the end of the day, responsibility for crime and crime prevention lies largely within our own communities. Tonight I will be hosting a crime forum within the riding of Willowdale. Speakers will include my friend and colleague Mr Frank Mazzilli, the MPP for London-Fanshawe; the chair of the Toronto Police Services Board, Councillor Norm Gardner; and Staff Inspector Derek Neeson, representing the Toronto Police Services Board.

We are holding this meeting in an effort to hear from members of the community on how to best tackle the problem of crime. We're holding this forum to inform them about the true costs of crime and to provide effective strategies. Anyone interested in attending should feel free to come to the Greek Orthodox community centre tonight.

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): If anyone in this province had any doubts about the consequences of the so-called Common Sense Revolution of the Harris government for the environment of Ontario, those doubts have been erased by the tragic and sad events in Walkerton. By slashing over 40% of the operating budget of the Ministry of the Environment and firing one third of the environment ministry staff, the people of Ontario have been put at risk of experiencing the same kind of unfortunate circumstances that are confronting the people of Walkerton this week, namely tragic deaths and hundreds of people dreadfully ill.

Specifically, as of December 31, 1996, the water and drinking water department staff was cut by 42%, with 48 staff having been let go. The groundwater and hydrogeology staff was reduced by 15, or 53%. The watershed management staff was reduced by 25% and the waste water staff by 33%. It is obvious that the Ministry of the Environment's staff is severely demoralized by huge cuts to staff and financial resources and is simply unable to respond adequately to the serious events and complex and widespread problems.

The Harris government has played chicken with the drinking water system in Ontario since taking office in 1995 and unfortunately, but predictably, the chickens have come home to roost.

How many people in this province would prefer to see the $200 politically motivated public relations exercise of mailing cheques to Ontario residents converted to an investment in safe drinking water in Ontario? After the Walkerton tragedy, I suspect an overwhelming majority of Ontarians would make that choice without hesitation.

FUNDRAISING

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): On the last night this Legislature sat before constituency week, May 18, the Leader of the Opposition retreated to his hometown of Ottawa to do something he likes to pretend he never does: accept money from corporate donors at a fundraising dinner. Yes, our Premier also attended a fundraiser that very same evening in the same city and I'm sure that a good but responsible time was had by all at both events.

But while the Harris government's economic policies are straightforward, I wonder whether Mr McGuinty's corporate guests knew that his policies have taken a decided left turn since the last election. For example, Mr McGuinty appears to have abandoned his moderate 20-20 election platform. At a pre-budget news conference, Mr McGuinty's stand on tax cuts bore a strange resemblance to the NDP's tax policy in the last election. And he reached all the way back to Bob Rae's opposition days for his opposition to tax cuts for job-creating business and his use of the word "American" as a scare tactic.

At the Liberal fundraiser, Mr McGuinty's corporate benefactors heard a lot of talk about the future. If only they knew that it would be more of a case of back to the future.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I beg leave to present the report from the standing committee on justice and social policy and move its adoption.

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

Bill 69,

An Act to Amend the Labour Relations Act, 1995, in relation to the construction industry / Projet de loi 69, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1995 sur les relations de travail en ce qui a trait à l'industrie de la construction.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say, "nay."

In my opinion, the "ayes" have it.

The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO NATURAL HERITAGE ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LE PATRIMOINE NATUREL DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Gilchrist moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 78,

An Act to ensure responsible and acceptable development and to protect the natural heritage of the Province of Ontario / Projet de loi 78, Loi visant à assurer l'aménagement judicieux et acceptable du territoire et à protéger le patrimoine naturel de la province de l'Ontario.

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

The member for a short statement.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): This bill will not only incorporate some important elements that will freeze any new development on the Oak Ridges moraine, but will require the production of a long-term plan that incorporates all of the elements of the 1994 Oak Ridges moraine strategy. It goes beyond that, though, and provides a number of powerful measures to promote urban intensification and discourage urban sprawl all across Ontario. This bill will strengthen the protection of natural heritage not just in the Oak Ridges moraine, but for all the citizens in Ontario and will bring greater balance back to the planning process across the province.

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to move unanimous consent that we move Mr Gilchrist's bill right through to second reading.

The Speaker: I don't think under the standing orders we could do that, but-

Interjection: With unanimous consent we could do it.

The Speaker: I beg your pardon. What were you asking for again? Maybe you could repeat it. I missed that.

Mr Colle: That we give Mr Gilchrist's bill immediate second and third readings with unanimous consent right here today.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House-agreed? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

Introduction of bills? The member for Ottawa-Vanier.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member is trying to introduce a bill, if the members would please co-operate.

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

LOI SUR LA CITÉ D'OTTAWA

Mrs Boyer moved first reading of the following bill / M me Boyer propose la première lecture du projet de loi suivant :

Bill 79,

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

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

The member for a short statement.

VISITOR

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome Mr Ken Monteith to Queen's Park today. Ken is a former member of Parliament from my riding of Elgin, and I'd just like to take this opportunity to welcome him.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm sure all members join in welcoming him.

DEFERRED VOTES

SPECIAL REPORT, INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We now have a deferred vote on the motion by Mr Conway arising from the Speaker's ruling of May 18, 2000.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1355 to 1400.

The Speaker: Would the members kindly take their seats, please?

Mr Conway has moved that, in light of the Speaker's ruling that there's a prima facie case of contempt, the special report to the Legislature made on 26 April 2000 by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, Dr Ann Cavoukian, concerning disclosures of personal information made by the Province of Ontario Savings Office in the Ministry of Finance and the obstruction the commissioner encountered in the course of her investigation, be referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly for its immediate consideration.

All those in favour will please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

The Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael D.

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Klees, Frank

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wilson, Jim

Wood, Bob

Young, David

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. There's plenty of time to debate without yelling across while we're taking a vote, I will remind the members.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 39; the nays are 49.

The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we begin question period, we have in the Speaker's gallery four interns from the National Assembly of Quebec. Please join me in welcoming our special guests: Philippe de Grandmont, Bridgitte Massé, Sophie Choquette and Francis Gagnon.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Can you guarantee us unequivocally today that the drinking water right across Ontario is safe?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I can guarantee you that we are doing everything we possibly can to make the drinking water the safest in the world.

Mr McGuinty: You couldn't answer that simple, straightforward question in a straightforward, unqualified way. What that drives home for me, Premier, is the need for a full, independent public inquiry into our drinking water in Ontario.

Premier, I want you to understand that this is bigger than you, it is bigger than me, it is bigger than any member in this Legislature, it is bigger than all of us combined; it has everything to do with reassuring the people of Ontario when it comes to the safety of their own drinking water. I believe that we together now have a very heavy debt. We owe it to the five people who died, we owe it to their families, we owe it to the thousand who were infected by E coli, we owe it to the entire community of Walkerton and indeed we owe it to all the people of Ontario. I ask you on their behalf, Premier, why will you not consent to a full, independent public inquiry?

Hon Mr Harris: I think we've all agreed that what happened in Walkerton is a tragedy. Clearly, our thoughts are with the families in this community and with everyone who is struggling to cope with these tragic events. Last Friday I pledged to the people of Walkerton that all necessary resources of the government would be given to help, first to solve the problem and then to the rest of the communities in Ontario to take all steps to ensure safety, and then I committed that we would do everything possible to get to the bottom of this.

We have now four separate inquiries, two of them full-blown public inquiries with the Legislative Assembly and of course with the coroner. The reason for this is so we can quickly get to answers for-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Would the Premier take his seat. Order. We're not going to start off this day and I cannot continue on, as I've said on numerous occasions, while you're yelling across. Under the circumstances, we've got a very controversial issue. Opposition members will have to understand that the people of the province also want to hear the Premier's answer, even if the opposition doesn't agree with it. It's a very controversial issue, but people need to hear both sides of the debate.

I'm going to be very quick to name members and throw them out today, because we can't have a situation where a question is asked and the members try to shout down the person answering. It just won't happen.

Hon Mr Harris: As I was indicating, our commitment is to get the answers for the people of Walkerton and indeed for this Legislature and all of Ontario absolutely as quickly as we can. The history of the kind of public inquiry you want is very, very slow. So we think the coroner's inquest, the OPP investigation, the environment investigation and the legislative committee all can get under way right away, rather than waiting months and sometimes maybe years.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, all of this tells me you're not interested in a cleanup of our water; you're interested in a cover-up. That's the direction you're taking. If you were genuinely committed to getting to the bottom of this, you would stand up in favour of a full, independent public inquiry. That's what the people of Walkerton deserve. We should have our House leaders meet right after question period today. They should get together, decide on the terms of reference and decide together on who we're going to put in charge of this inquiry. Let's get this show on the road.

That's what we should be doing here, together. That public inquiry should leave no stone unturned. They should conduct a thorough review of our water delivery system in Ontario and do everything we can to find out what is going wrong wherever and to make sure we correct that. This is bigger than political damage control, it is bigger than political sensitivities. If your government has some responsibility, as I believe it does, you'll have to deal with that. If previous governments have responsibility, we'll have to deal with that.

But this is bigger than all of us, and the only way we can get to the bottom is through a full independent public inquiry. Why can't we have one?

Hon Mr Harris: I think it's very important for the people of Walkerton and it's important for the public to know that what you're asking for is a process. For example, when we had tainted blood, in November 1992 standing committee hearings began. In 1985 they knew about problems. In October 1993 the public inquiry, the Krever commission, began, and because of the rules of what you're calling for, hearings began five months later and four years later they reported. We can't wait five months. We don't want to wait five months. We'd like the legislative committee to begin now. We don't want to wait four years for recommendations.

There is absolutely no reason why a legislative committee cannot begin sitting now, cannot begin getting to the bottom of this right now. Our goal is to get to the bottom of this as quickly as possible and I'm disappointed that you as a legislator don't want to accept that responsibility with us to get to the bottom of this.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr McGuinty: My new question is for the Premier. I want to remind the Premier of what he and his caucus just voted against. This government was caught with their hand in the cookie jar when it came to the privacy laws here in Ontario. They were then caught trying to cover that up, and now they're trying to sweep this matter under the carpet and they're asking us here today to have confidence in their legislative committee. Give me a break.

The only way we're going to be able to deal with this matter, and you know it, Premier, and the people of Walkerton know it and the people of this province know it, is through an independent inquiry: one that operates at arm's length from all the politicians in this Legislature-and I emphasize that-all the politicians in this Legislature. I believe that is what we must do at a minimum because it's in the public interest. I ask you again, Premier, in the public interest, why can't we have a full, independent public inquiry?

Hon Mr Harris: I am disappointed that the member doesn't seem to want to engage in his responsibility as a legislator and feels that he can't. We on this side of the House feel that we can have a full and public inquiry with a legislative committee. I am surprised that you don't consider the OPP independent. I think that's shocking. I'm surprised that you do not consider the coroner, with a full inquiry and all the powers he has, independent. I find that shocking as well. I am shocked-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Premier take his seat.

Premier, sorry for the interruption.

Hon Mr Harris: I am shocked that you do not want to accept your responsibility and have your members participate as quickly as possible so we don't have to wait months and months to begin, as is the case with public inquiries, or even years to report. We happen to think that what happened in Walkerton-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Premier take his seat. The member for Ottawa Centre, last warning; the member for Hamilton East, his last warning as well. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: We happen to think that the tragedy in Walkerton and the goal of ensuring safe water require immediate action and that's why we're proposing immediate action.

Mr McGuinty: Let me be perfectly clear: I trust the coroner, I trust the OPP, but I don't trust you and your committee to conduct a self-investigation. It is already a matter of public record that ministry officials didn't do what they were supposed to do under the terms of their own guidelines and objectives.

Premier, when we talk about this committee of yours, it's a kangaroo committee. It is dominated by Tory members. The guy you have put in charge is a disgraced minister who was convicted of tax evasion. That's what you're talking about here, and you think that is going to inspire confidence in us and the people of the province of Ontario? Why not do the honourable thing in this matter and hold a full, independent and public inquiry?

Hon Mr Harris: Let me thank the very, very honourable member for his question and the tone and the way he phrases it.

Let's get to the heart of the matter here. The legislative committee is clearly the quickest and the fastest way-all-party, with independence from the Ministry of the Environment. I don't think there will be any Ministry of the Environment officials who will sit on the legislative committee; in fact, they will be asked to appear and come before it.

Let me give you a record of another royal commission of inquiry, this one a provincial one into the Niagara Regional Police force. This one was commissioned March 25, 1988, and it reported over five years and one election later. We're not interested in waiting five years and an election to get to the bottom of this. We want to start today, and I encourage you to have your members participate with the members on this side of the House, who are anxious to get all of the facts out in the open in as clear and upfront a way as we can, just as I committed to the people of Walkerton.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you are overlooking the example of Mr Justice Estey's inquiry that looked into a strike and a disturbance that was held just outside this building. That work was begun and completed within a time frame of six months. The bottom line is, if there is a will, there is a way. I am convinced that our three House leaders can get together. We can put in place specific terms of reference, we can put in place a start date and an end date, and we can have this committee travel throughout the province and provide reassurance to the people of Ontario that we're doing everything we reasonably can to look out for their interests when it comes to their drinking water.

Premier, you don't seem to understand. Today, people in Ontario are looking at this stuff and asking questions-they haven't done that since the early 1900s-because of some tragedy that unfolded on your watch. Once more, on behalf of not only the people of Walkerton but all the people of Ontario who have had their confidence in their drinking water shaken, I'm asking you, why can we not have an independent public inquiry?

Hon Mr Harris: I really am disappointed that you have so little regard for the legislative process and for the ability of the independent members of the Legislature-

Interjections.

Hon Mr Harris: I want to say that it saddens me that you want to prejudice-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the Premier take his seat. The members will know that the more they act up, there are fewer questions. The people want to hear questions and answers and, quite frankly, we can't continue. There are going to be fewer questions on for all members as a result of it because we are not going to continue. As the members will know, more questions asked is what the people of this province want. But we can't continue, and if I have to stand up here for the entire remaining 47 minutes we will do that, because we are not going to continue with shouting across at each other on both sides. It's just not going to happen.

Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: As I say, it saddens me that there's so little confidence in the legislative process, in the committee and the powers that it has. To prejudge the committee is very, very disappointing to me in a government that has been the most open in the history of this province.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is to the Premier and it too concerns the safety of Ontario's water supply. All over Ontario people are alarmed at the safety and security of our water supply, and the sad fact is, because of your government they have reason to be alarmed. In 1996, the environment-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm sorry to have to interrupt. The Minister of Labour and the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke can't continue on with the conversation. Quiet conversations I don't mind. The leader of the third party is-

Interjection.

The Speaker: Just a moment, please-trying to ask a question, and when people are shouting across it interrupts his flow. I'm doing it to help the leader of the third party and I would ask the members to stop shouting across at each other. It is now the leader of the third party's time. We are going to start over at the beginning of his question. He can start over because of the interruption.

Mr Hampton: In 1996, the environmental commissioner said you should implement a comprehensive groundwater strategy to protect our water. You failed to do that. You promised a system of water-taking permits to protect the security and safety of our water and the ecosystem. You failed to do that. In 1998, there were 3,300 violations of the water pollution discharge standards in the province and you prosecuted only one of them. What happened in Walkerton is tragic, but it's apparent that the problem of water safety is a problem that extends across the province.

Premier, you and your government have an obligation to protect that water supply for all the people. Will you call a royal commission with tight timelines so that we can investigate the safety of the water supply across the province and also your government's capacity to protect it?

Hon Mr Harris: I know we have a request for a public inquiry and now a request for a royal commission. We have four inquiries underway today to deal with what I think we would all agree is a very serious issue.

I think it's been very clear. We've been very upfront and we're making all the information available and we've asked all the officials who knew what to make the information available. We have said that to the OPP, we've said that to the Ministry of the Environment commission that is looking at this, their report, and as well we'll make the same request of course to the coroner's commission. Both the coroner and the legislative committee are public, and they're full-blown and have full powers of subpoena.

We are making it very clear that in this referral we would like the work to start right away and we'll make all the information available. I think it's the quickest and the fastest way to get to the bottom of what happened in Walkerton and-

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

Mr Hampton: I don't think you appreciate the enormity of this. In Walkerton your Ministry of the Environment officials broke the law. They were notified of the contamination of the Walkerton water supply. Under the law, they were supposed to inform the medical officer of health. They didn't.

The province used to have an agreement with Ottawa for the protection and cleanup of the Great Lakes water supply. You let that die. You failed to release the most recent water quality test results for all municipal drinking water systems across the province. You haven't told the public which water treatment plants have outstanding orders against them from the MOE. This is clearly a problem that extends across the province.

Your so-called legislative inquiry can't begin until after the OPP investigation, the Ministry of the Environment investigation, the coroner's inquest. It can't continue when the House isn't sitting and it has to stop whenever there are legal proceedings. Your so-called review probably won't get underway for at least four or five months, and even if it gets underway, it's going to be delayed and delayed.

What we want is a royal commission to look at the safety of the water supply across this province. We can put together a royal commission with tight timelines, one that isn't going to be ridden with delay. Do you care about the safety of the water supply across the province? If you do, appoint the royal commission now and let's get underway.

Hon Mr Harris: Of course we care and of course we're doing everything we can to get to the bottom of this. I'm a little surprised, though, that you, like the Leader of the Opposition, don't have any confidence and debunk the work of the legislators on our committees. To suggest that they have to wait to start is erroneous. It can start tomorrow. There's no reason why this referral to the committee cannot begin. If you think there is some impediment, I'm sure with co-operation we can clear that up. There's no reason for the committee not to begin now. There is no reason for the committee not to carry on.

Whatever reason there is why a committee not be able to proceed, if requested by the OPP or if there is an injunction because of any court cases, it would be an identical intervention or injunction that would hit a royal commission. As you know, there have been commissions of inquiry and royal commissions that have had to cease aspects because of damage it was felt they might do to the legal process.

Right now there are no charges out there. There is an investigation. I think we would have to be careful-

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

Mr Hampton: Premier, because of your government's cuts to the Ministry of the Environment, because of your downloading, we know that there are 46 communities identified in the last drinking water surveillance report as having exceeded health-related parameters. That's how widespread this problem is. There are more than 600 municipal waterworks in Ontario. Your drinking water surveillance program only checks 175 of them; 175 are checked and 46 are found to be over the limit. That's how widespread this is.

What you're going to provide the people of Ontario is simply a legislative committee dominated by Conservative members, the same Conservative members who cheered when all these cuts were made, who cheered when the technicians, the scientists and the inspectors were laid off at the Ministry of the Environment, who cheered and said that when your Red Tape Commission came in and called for getting rid of 50% of the environmental regulations, they thought that was a great idea.

The same people who presided over this disaster you now want to have in charge of the hearing. This is much bigger, much more widespread than you are prepared to admit. The only way to ensure the safety of Ontario's water supply and to ensure that your government is prepared to take that role seriously is to go to a royal commission and do it now.

Will you name a royal commission? We can prepare tight timelines. Let's assure the people of Ontario that your government is going to protect their water supply.

Hon Mr Harris: I can assure you that the members on this side of the House will be fully co-operative on the committee, ready to start now and ready to get all the answers. I'm not aware of the details which you present. Normally, that information that comes from you is not very accurate, but in this case maybe it is. I have no way of knowing. If you would like to get those questions to the Minister of the Environment, he may know the technicality of some of the questions that you have. I'm sure he'd be happy to answer them and he'd be happy to appear before a legislative committee.

Those are all matters that should be looked at so we can sort out what is totally irrelevant and has nothing to do with the Walkerton situation. I think it's already been demonstrated the procedures in place were sound. There appears to have been some human error. There appear to have been some facts withheld by individuals. But to date, there's not a shred of evidence that there isn't enough staff, nor a shred of evidence that the procedures and the regulations, if they were complied with, would not have prevented this tragedy. That's how it appears to me.

The Speaker: Order. I'm afraid the Premier's time is up. New question. Leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: Premier, let me give you some other reasons why we need a much broader based royal commission. As early as last September, the person who blew the whistle on Walkerton's dirty water problem warned about water contamination due to manure from factory farms. Your government did nothing about that.

Dr Murray McQuigge alerted Bruce county council to water pollution from factory farm manure. He wrote, "There have been studies that show downstream pollution by antibiotic-resistant bacteria." That alone ought to send shivers down everyone's back.

The counties of Bruce and Huron combined have over 500,000 hogs being raised. There's a huge farm with 2,500 hogs creating tons of manure just outside of Walkerton. The problem in Bruce county is so serious that officials have put a hold on further factory farms.

These are the issues, Premier, that are contributing to everyone's concern about the quality of water supply.

Will you appoint a royal commission so that these issues can be looked at in relation to what happened at Walkerton and the other problems that are already starting to emerge in the water supply across the province? You've got a chance to get out in front of this and prevent serious damage from happening elsewhere. Will you do that?

Hon Mr Harris: I appreciate the question. It does point to an area of concern. We do work proactively to minimize the risk through nutrient management. I need to remind everybody that existing environmental laws apply equally to everyone, including farmers. They are not exempt from provincial environment legislation.

Specifically to intensive farming, we initiated a consultation to seek input from stakeholders on the various issues related to this. It was chaired by Doug Galt, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment, and Mr Barrett, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture. We're working with local farm groups to develop the best practices. They have reported to the minister and it will be brought forward to cabinet.

Rather than wait for a royal commission, we've been doing this now for a number of years and in fact intensively in the last number of months. I appreciate the member's interest. We're hopeful we can bring something forward to the Legislature long before a public inquiry could even begin.

Mr Hampton: The Premier refers to the task force. Yes, you held a task force. You virtually held the meetings in secret. The report you refused to make public. That's part of the problem. That's why we need a royal commission to look at these issues.

Premier, an American study shows manure as a main source of surface and groundwater pollution. A pig farm with as many as 3,000 pigs produces the same amount of manure as 15,000 people-three times the size of Walkerton-and yet you have, in the two combined counties, 500,000 head of hogs. That's what people are worried about. You did a task force; now you refuse to release the results-another reason why we need a royal commission.

This problem is much bigger, much more widespread than your government is prepared to let on. A royal commission can be done with tight time frames. It doesn't have to wait until the Legislature is not sitting this summer, it doesn't have to wait for the coroner's report, it doesn't have to wait for the OPP report and it doesn't have to wait for your Ministry of the Environment to make yet more mistakes. It can begin its work right now.

What do you have to fear, Premier? Why won't you act on behalf of all those Ontario citizens who are concerned about our water supply and want something done about it? Why won't you name a royal commission?

Hon Mr Harris: As I indicated, we have been acting in advance of this. It's important for people to understand that I don't think there's any evidence, that I'm aware of, of intensive farming playing any role at all in the Walkerton situation. In fact, nobody has made that allegation; there's no intensive farming in proximity of any of the wells. I think it's important people understand that. But it is an important issue, which is why we've moved on it long in advance of Walkerton and long in advance of a royal commission. As I indicated, their joint report has been filed with the minister.

He is planning to bring forward legislative options to cabinet colleagues this spring. So rather than wait for a royal commission, I hope we can deal with this matter, which has nothing to do with Walkerton but has to do with groundwater and has to do with a very serious concern, independently, much sooner than waiting for an inquiry.

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Premier. Yesterday, Premier, you said, "The recommendations that we accepted for the Ministry of the Environment were to provide better service, and at no time was any single individual downsized in the Ministry of the Environment, at no time was any person downsized in a way that should have affected the delivery of any services of the Ministry of the Environment." Can you tell me, Premier, if that is so, why the Ministry of the Environment has been secretly developing defences against exactly the kind of suits that may be forthcoming in Walkerton.

"The Ministry of Environment, worried that it is vulnerable to civil lawsuits alleging lax enforcement of environmental rules, has developed secret legal defences against claims of regulatory negligence, according to documents obtained...."

The memo is written by Sheila Willis, an assistant deputy minister, to Jack Johnson, then the top legal official in the ministry.

"The action was based in part on worries that staff layoffs have compromised the ministry's ability to fully enforce the regulations for which it is responsible, according to another document written by Ms Willis."

Could you tell me, Premier, if you were so confident in your answer yesterday, why you're secretly developing legal defences in situations where it would appear that cuts in staff would cause negligence in the Ministry of the Environment?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'm not aware that the Ministry of the Environment-I would assume that there are probably going to be lawsuits and I would assume that the town of Walkerton, the Ministry of the Environment and other officials are looking at whether there would be lawsuits.

I was asked yesterday, I think by you, or by one of your colleagues, about any reductions we made to personnel or budgets of the Ministry of the Environment. Clearly it was our intent to get better service, better quality, more efficiently and more effectively. That's what brought this province out of bankruptcy. That's what allowed this province to survive, for there even to be a government today. That was our intention. If you are alleging, as some are, that through any of those changes any safety has been compromised, certainly it was not our intent. I would hope that is not the case, but if that's something you would like to bring to the legislative committee, let's get started.

Mr Bradley: I'm going to bring it to the House this afternoon because the Premier had said something that is clearly contradicted by secret documents in the ministry. "Ms Willis said she wanted the changes because of the large number of alterations being made to Ontario's environmental regulations by the Progressive Conservative government.

"Ms Willis instructed the ministry's legal staff to develop what she called a `policy exemption defence' against this regulatory negligence."

Under this approach, governments can free themselves from liability by having formal policies outlining the regulations they will enforce and their priorities, given the constraints they face. According to one of the documents, the ministry has identified the need to have defences against regulatory negligence in about 75% of functions, including initiatives that are supposed to ensure air quality, surface and groundwater quality, proper waste management, the quality of drinking water and the safe use of pesticides.

Mr Premier, how on one hand can you say those cuts have had no consequences, while on the other hand you have internal documents that are developed as a defence against your government, knowing full well that those kinds of cuts will bring about negligence complaints and perhaps legal proceedings against your government?

Hon Mr Harris: As long as there is opposition, there will be complaints. I know that not everybody will be 100% happy with every decision to take this province from bankruptcy to a solid financial footing. I understand that.

I think what you're referring to is about a three-year-old memo, but I'm not sure; you haven't shared it with me. But if you would agree to get on with a legislative committee and you think that information should be shared, then we're happy to share all of that information and anything else the ministry has.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Labour. As you know, it's nearing the month of June and soon the high school students, university students and of course the college students in Ontario, indeed at Durham in my riding, will be out looking for summer jobs. A few weeks ago I asked you a question with respect to workplace safety, and today I'm concerned about employees and employers with respect to aspects of the Employment Standards Act.

Most of the questions arise out of a general difficulty of understanding the act itself. Minister, are you looking at steps to review the Employment Standards Act, and could you report that to the House today?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): Yes, as a matter of fact, we are. The Employment Standards Act established the workplace standards in Ontario and sets ground rules for employers and employees, ie, hours of work, minimum wage, termination of employment. The bill was originally enacted in 1968-I'm sorry?

Interjection.

Hon Mr Stockwell: OK. Talk to me later about that.

It's piecemeal and hard to understand. First, we'll meet the Blueprint commitments about greater flexibility in designing work arrangements, and then we'll implement an up to 10-days-a-year, unpaid, job-protected family crisis leave as well.

In addition, we'll make the ESA less complex and easier to understand.

The Ministry of Labour is currently putting together a white paper that will be released this summer and we will tour with that white paper to get input from employers and unions and the employees. That plan is to move forward as quickly as we can in hopes of getting a full complement of input from all sectors in society.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much for that engaging response. I'm looking forward to receiving a copy of the white paper and sharing it with my constituents.

As you mentioned, I think for the Ontario people it's important that you recognize the changes in the workplace itself, changes you've mentioned here in terms of flexibility in the workplace. I specifically like the reference to the crisis leave. I think that's a very insightful addition to the Employment Standards Act which, as you said, needs to be updated.

The employment standards are especially important as they set out the standards for work and employees across the province. Minister, what plans-I guess you've kind of answered this-do you have to consult with stakeholders and potential changes to the Employment Standards Act and reform?

Hon Mr Stockwell: Obviously we're going to consult, as we have shown a propensity to do in the last number of years, with the communities at stake: the employers, the employees and the unions.

I have spent a lot of time talking to the union leadership about what we need to do to create an update of the Employment Standards Act. In fact, some in my own caucus suggest that I've spent too much time consulting with the union leadership.

The Future of Work in Ontario discussion paper was written by Mr Flaherty and released in 1998. It posed broad questions about what workplace parties perceive as the most important changes. We will consult with stakeholders, employers, unions and of course the member for Kingston and the Islands. We will listen to anyone who has concerns or suggestions. We plan on travelling throughout this province. We want to take meetings to anyone who has an opinion or a concern and we're committed to making sure that all voices will be heard before any legislative change is done.

Also, every side on this discussion agrees that the Employment Standards Act is outdated, it's ambiguous and it's got double meanings throughout. We plan on making those changes and bringing forward a good bill to recommend to this Legislature in the fall.

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Just a few minutes ago, in response to a question by the leader of the third party, who he was talking about the Walkerton tragedy, you said, "The procedures in place were sound." One thousand people were infected by E coli, five people died and you say, "The procedures in place were sound." Your minister rushes yesterday at breakneck speed into the media studio and announces that he's changing the law in Ontario because it wasn't right in the first place, but you say, "The procedures in place were sound."

Now you expect us to have confidence in your Tory-dominated committee to deal with this important matter of public interest. It seems to me, Premier, like the fix is in. It seems to me you've already made up your mind; you've already acquitted yourself and your government of any wrongdoing, any responsibility in this matter. Once again I ask, therefore, on behalf of the people of Ontario, why can't we have a full, independent public inquiry?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Very clearly, from the evidence we have seen so far, if the procedures that were in place under your government and then modified under the NDP government and accepted by our government had been followed-and I think that has been verified by the medical officer of health-in fact this tragedy need not have taken place. If there is a procedure that you believe should have been different, we'd welcome that today, in fact, if we can change it.

What the minister indicated yesterday was that these procedures that look like they were not followed must be followed, and to give them more force of law. But there's nothing more forceful than, "This is what you're supposed to do, and if you don't do it you're held accountable both in public and in private."

Interjections.

Hon Mr Harris: Clearly, the evidence suggests, as you're shouting and yelling back at me, that some people didn't follow the procedures. We're very concerned about that. We want to know why and how to prevent that in the future. That's why the minister repeated those procedures more forcefully yesterday.

Mr McGuinty: Your government no longer has any credibility on this issue. Now you want to foist this off to a legislative committee that is controlled by the Tories. Just so the public understands what we're talking about here, that means you control the witnesses, you control the documents that are brought forward, you control the time allotted for this committee work, you control where we travel to, you control the staffing, you control the budgets and you control every single vote, Premier.

How can you expect us to have confidence, how can you expect the people of Walkerton and the people of Ontario to have confidence, in that kind of process? The only right thing to do here, Premier, and you know it in your heart of hearts, is to have a full, independent public inquiry.

Hon Mr Harris: I think the member knows there are many unanswered questions. What we do know-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Member for Windsor-St Clair, last warning; member for Sudbury, last warning; member for Kingston and the Islands, last warning; and member for Scarborough-Rouge River, last warning. If it continues, you're all out.

Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: Thank you. There are many unanswered questions. What we do know is that testing was done. We know results were reported but were not broadly shared, as they should have been, as the procedures outline. We want to know why the lab results were not shared, as procedures require, why there were delays in notification, and clearly a breakdown seems to have occurred. Errors of judgment appear to have played a role-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. I warned the member for Hamilton East. I have no alternative but to name him and ask him to leave the chamber. I'd ask Dominic Agostino to leave the chamber, please.

Premier.

Mr Agostino was escorted from the chamber.

Hon Mr Harris: Clearly, errors in judgment appear to have played a role, perhaps at many levels of government. We need to know how this happened. We need to know how to prevent it from ever happening again. That's what our inquiries-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Premier take his seat. This is a warning for everybody now. We can't continue to go out one at a time. Any more shouting across and they're going to be named and we'll do it if there's three or four. If we end up with just the pages and the Sergeant at Arms in here, that's the way it's going to have to be. We can't continue. We've had numerous warnings to people, one person thrown out and we can't just continue to have shouting across. This is a warning for the entire official opposition: any more shouting like that where you shout him down-I've said on a number of occasions that heckling is fine.

I've used the example of the member for St Catharines and the Minister of Labour. You can do it, but you can't do it with the only intention of shouting down the other side. It can't happen in question period.

Quite frankly, we're one of the few democracies that has a question period where you're allowed to have the government held accountable with question period. If you're just going to yell and scream-the people of this province don't want to see a Speaker up here. They want to hear questions. You won't always agree with the questions or the answers, but that's our system. An entire warning to the official opposition, and if I have to name everyone, I will do it. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: I think clearly we all agree. We need to know how this happened and how we can prevent it from happening again. That's what our four inquiries will provide. To prejudge the legislative committee before we've even got it up and running, and to suggest that this government, which has been forthcoming with all the information that we can, has any motive other than to get to the bottom of this-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Premier take his seat. The member for Essex-again, I warned everybody-I'm afraid I have no alternative but to name him and ask him to leave as well. I ask the member, Mr Crozier, to please leave.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): Speaker, you didn't name me yet.

The Speaker: I'm naming you now; I just did. I may not have done it in the correct way, but I am naming you.

Mr Crozier: You're just about as democratic as those guys.

The Speaker: Order. That's not going to be helpful. I warned the member.

Mr Crozier: That was the first comment I made.

The Speaker: We had a situation where I said everybody was put on warning.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Crozier was escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker: We're dealing with a very controversial issue. It's tough enough dealing in here. But we cannot have situations where people begin to shout immediately when the question is asked.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Point of order, the member for Windsor-St Clair. Keep the clock running, please.

Mr Duncan: Mr Speaker, the rules of decorum in this House are not specific with respect to warnings and so on. It is clearly within your purview, sir, to name members when you believe decorum's been violated. The official opposition, however, has to seek your advice with respect to how we deal with a situation. Let me put it to you specifically.

Yesterday's motion that was passed by this House calls for this committee to meet immediately. Then it goes on to say that it can't meet unless certain other things-police inquiry, coroner's inquiry. The problem the official opposition is having with your naming our members is the absolute frustration we're feeling at having issues stonewalled. Your very own prima facie case of contempt of this Legislature was voted down a mere half-hour ago. How can we have confidence in this House and in this government if you won't allow us to use whatever means are at our disposal-

The Speaker: It's not a point of order. The member will take his seat. The situation is very clear. The Speaker has the responsibility for keeping order in this House. It is sometimes very difficult to do that, particularly with controversial issues, but I guarantee everybody in this House, order will be maintained or members will be made to leave. That's a very simple rule. If you behave in here, you can carry on. I've let questions go on here that are extremely aggressive, very forceful. The member's own leader asked very tough, forceful questions. That's perfectly in order.

What is not in order is shouting down the other side. The people of this province want to hear answers and questions. We don't always like the answers or the questions. Quite frankly, we have probably ticked down time while you were doing the point of order. People don't want to hear us arguing over points of order. They want questions and answers. I have one duty in here. That duty is to maintain order, and I will do that.

Premier, I believe you were finishing.

Hon Mr Harris: By way of conclusion, let me say that we all want to find out answers to these questions-those that have been asked by the opposition today, those asked by the people of Walkerton, those asked by the media and those asked by Ontarians-and I think to prejudge the committee process is the wrong way to go.

The evidence of what we have offered by way of four inquiries now, including an all-party legislative inquiry- and I suggest to you nothing is easier than saying, "Oh, we'll turn it over to a judge and let him take whatever time he wants to take and hire all the lawyers and away we go," but I think that's an abdication of our responsibility as legislators. I ask all members, including the opposition members, to begin, have the committee sit, get started and get on with this legislative inquiry of this issue that we all agree is very serious.

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): Let me say at the outset that my question will be for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. But on behalf of my community of Niagara-Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Thorold and several other areas-let me pass on our deepest sympathies to the people of Walkerton and let them know that in my community our prayers and thoughts are with all of them.

Minister, I know that you have just returned from meeting with officials from three European Union countries regarding the problems Ontario has been having forever exporting our wines to these countries. This is a very important issue to the people of Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake. Could you please tell me how these meetings went and what kind of response you've received from the European Union countries?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I thank the member for Niagara Falls for his opening comments and his interest in this subject. I think I would describe the visit in one word: helpful. It was helpful for both our representatives and the officials we met throughout the European Union. I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding with respect to the stances that we have taken on a number of issues of concern to EU members, and certainly I don't think that they appreciated the depth of the imbalance with respect to the trade relations between our countries.

Currently, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario is selling approximately $350 million of wine products from European Union countries, and Canada-especially Ontario-producing world-class products, is virtually denied complete access to their markets. This is a blatantly unfair situation which cannot continue to exist. We delivered that message in no uncertain terms and at the same time had the opportunity to explain and address some of their concerns.

Mr Maves: Thank you, Minister, for the answer. I appreciate you making the trip and your efforts on our behalf. I know that the people of Niagara appreciate you taking the initiative to stand up for winemakers and grape-growers in Ontario.

With trade of course being a federal jurisdiction, I and many people in Niagara region have been extremely disappointed with the lack of action from the federal government on this front. I thank you for leading the charge. However, I must ask, is there light at the end of the tunnel for Ontario's winemakers and grape-growers?

Hon Mr Runciman: I think one of the most distressing meetings we had during our visit was with other representatives of New World wine-producing nations who indicated the situations that they're facing in terms of access. All of them, with the exception of Canada, have virtually open access to EU markets while at the same time purchasing very little product in comparison to the LCBO. So it's a very difficult situation to understand, let alone accept. One example is the artificial barriers put in place for the outstanding ice wines produced in Ontario.

They have placed a barrier of residual sugar content on our product while allowing producers within the EU to sell that product to other markets-a totally unfair situation.

I think we did make some headway. Certainly we indicated that, as Canadians, we are patient people, but our patience is wearing very thin on this issue. I think there is some light at the end of the tunnel. We're looking for some movement, some progress in the next six to 12 months. If it doesn't occur, we'll have to consider our options.

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): To the Minister of the Environment: Environmental Commissioner Eva Ligeti warned you, in 1997, when she said, "Government cutbacks have compromised environmental protection in the area of drinking water testing," and warned that if we don't want to see dead bodies, then safeguards need to be implemented. Well, tragically now we have dead bodies.

Minister, yesterday you announced new regulations to help safeguard our water. Dr McQuigge, the medical officer of health, said last night, as well as myself and others, that if you don't put the resources back into the ministry, then those regulations are not worth the paper they're written on.

I'm asking you now to stand up in this House and say you will demand that the $100 million that you took out of the environmental budget over the last five years will be put back immediately, and front-line staff hired so they can protect the drinking water of this province so we do not have any more dead bodies as a direct result of the cuts and the deregulation and the downloading and the privatization of your government.

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): There are safeguards in place to protect the drinking water for the people of Ontario. What I announced yesterday was bringing this into the force of law through a regulation. What it would require is laboratories that are going to test will now be required, via regulation, to be certified labs. That's what is important.

The regulation that is being drafted will also include certificates of approval for those water facilities. They are all going to be reviewed and then be reviewed on a three-year basis, which is very important.

The regulation also deals with the Ministry of the Environment being notified of any change in labs on the part of any of the water facilities in this province.

Ms Churley: Minister, the more you and your Premier answer questions today in the manner that you have, it becomes increasingly clear that you don't know what the hell is going on over there. I am telling you today-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. I wish the member would not use language like that.

Ms Churley: I withdraw that.

You don't know what's going on out there. We have five people dead. Expert after expert has told you that there is a problem with your cuts. You now have slashed the provincial water protection fund by over $100 million and you planned to cut it entirely this year. That is just one example.

You don't seem to understand the enormity of the problem we have before us. I am asking you again to admit that there is a direct relationship between the tax dollars we pay and the vital services that government is supposed to offer, that in some cases can mean the difference between life and death. Will you finally get it and put the resources back in the Ministry of the Environment so that the people of Ontario can feel when they pick up a glass of water to drink that they're safe and they aren't going to die?

Hon Mr Newman: Again, the situation in Walkerton is a very tragic and unfortunate situation that everyone is dealing with.

The member raises the issue of the provincial water protection fund. This government had a fund of $200 million that was to be spread over three years. We accelerated that money so that municipalities across this province could have access to those dollars. It was to be over three years; the program was put over two years. Many, many municipalities across Ontario chose to make use of that money.

As I said yesterday, the town of Walkerton did not take advantage of that fund.

Ms Churley: That is not the goddamned point.

The Speaker: The minister will take his seat. I will have to name the member.

Ms Churley: I'm leaving.

The Speaker: She is leaving on her own, but I will name the member. We can't have situations like that occurring.

Ms Churley was escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker: I don't know where we were. I think the member was about to sum up.

Hon Mr Newman: I was merely trying to illustrate the point that the government does take this issue very seriously. We took it seriously before Walkerton; we take it seriously today. That's why we had the provincial water protection fund in place so that municipalities could have access to those dollars.

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is to the Premier and it concerns the inquiry. Let's just come back to what we know. We know that five people are dead, one of whom was a two-and-a-half-year-old baby girl. She's dead. Four other people are dead. One thousand people were sickened. Why? Because adults working for local and provincial authorities apparently did not do their job. That much we know.

Now, what are we being asked to believe? That we're going to have an inquiry and we should accept an inquiry, a legislative committee, headed by Mr Gilchrist, who you, Mr Premier, threw out of your own cabinet under a cloud, and we're also asked to accept a legislative committee that is, as we all know, going to be very much controlled by the government House leader, Mr Norman Sterling, who for much of this time was the Minister of the Environment.

I ask the House, I ask all of you as adults and as parents-oh, you laugh, I say to the member for Guelph-Wellington. People are dead, I say to the laughing member from Guelph, and their families and their neighbours and their parents are entitled to know from this Legislature what happened.

With a legislative committee that's going to be led by Steve Gilchrist and controlled-if behind the curtain-by the now government House leader, Mr Sterling, who was through 1998 and 1999 the Minister of the Environment, who may very well be culpable, how can any of us, least of all you, Mr Premier, accept that as anything other than a sham, and for important members of the community like the government House leader an obvious and potential conflict of interest?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Nobody wants to get to the bottom of this more than I or the minister or all the members on this side of the House. So I encourage all members to work with the legislative process. It has worked very well on many occasions in the past. Our commitment is that it will be open, that we will be free to begin immediately, that we can get on with this right away. I'm disappointed that the member from Renfrew doesn't want to participate. Our members are anxious to get to the bottom of this in a full and open and unfettered way.

I say to the member that, while we're not screaming and yelling, we have a great deal of empathy and share in the sympathy for the people who have died in Walkerton.

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington): Speaker, on a point of personal privilege: I would like to point out that the member across the way from Renfrew just indicated that I was laughing at the matter on which he was asking the question with regard to Walkerton. I would like the member to note closely that I was in fact involved in a separate conversation. I personally take the matter of what happened in Walkerton seriously-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the member for correcting-

Interjections.

The Speaker: You'll get your full minute. That's not a point of order. I thank the member for correcting the record. Supplementary.

Mr Conway: You know, I am mad as hell, I'll confess that, because people are dead, a young girl is dead, and it may very well be-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member take his seat. The clock is running down. The member has got an opportunity to ask a question in a minute and 25. He can either ask a question or he can stand here and look at me. Quite frankly, the people of the province would rather hear a question from the member, who is asking a tough, forceful question that the people of this province want asked, and it doesn't help to be shouting and throwing anybody else out. We've got about one minute to the member for the question. We'll give him the full minute to start over.

Mr Conway: No, I don't want to start over, because I am mad as hell. People are dead. There may be blood on our hands. I think there is blood on our hands. I want to know and the families of those dead people in Bruce county have a right to know what happened. I'm the senior member of this Legislature, I'm a former minister, I'm a former government House leader, and, yes, I'm an active member of the Legislature, and I'm one who believes, perhaps more than most, as my earlier motion this week made plain, that there is an important role for legislative committees.

But I say from the bottom of my heart, Premier, this is not one of them because it is clear that we, as an Ontario government, and we, as former ministers of the environment-and God knows who else-may be culpable. We probably are going to be defendants in this action. How can we possibly stare those people whose relatives have died in the face and say, "Accept this." Did any of us fight as hard as we did to get here to do that?

In good faith, tell the dead people of Bruce county and their relatives that at a minimum you are going to see to it that there is an independent inquiry that gets all of the facts out, and then we can decide.

Hon Mr Harris: As the member will know, I have assured the people of Walkerton that there will be several full-blown and independent inquiries. I have assured them-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: As I said, I have assured the people of Walkerton, the people of Ontario and this Legislature that there will be several inquiries. Certainly the independence of the OPP I don't think is in question, or that the independence of the coroner, full and public, with power to subpoena, is in question. The investigation: Surely you would expect the Ministry of the Environment to do that and report to a legislative committee which can begin right away. I'm disappointed that members are prejudging a legislative committee. If the member is suggesting former ministers of the environment not be on the committee, I'll take that to heart. I suggest that the other caucuses do too.

The Speaker: The time for question period is over.

On a point of order, the member for Windsor-St. Clair.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Mr Speaker, today's order of the day is an opposition day motion. I have another opportunity to seek unanimous consent to change the opposition day motion. I'd like to change the motion to read as follows:

"That the government, under the Public Inquiries Act, should appoint a public inquiry into Ontario's water supply to consider and report on the safety of the province's drinking water, in particular:

(1) To examine legislation and regulations governing the provision of, standards for and testing of drinking water in the province;

(2) To examine the adequacy of the inspection and monitoring programs for all provincial water systems, and the role of the province in guaranteeing adequate testing, including funding and staffing considerations;

(3) To examine any other matters that the commission considers relevant to the above terms of reference to ensure that the tragedy of Walkerton does not ever happen again anywhere in this province;

"And that the three House leaders are consulted and must approve the government's appointee(

s) to the inquiry, any changes or additions to the above terms of reference for the commission and the reporting date for the commission's interim and final reports."

Anything less than this would amount to nothing more than an absolute cover-up and stonewall on the part of the government of Ontario.

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

Mr Conway: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I want to say I just had a conversation with the member for Guelph-Wellington. She assures me that she was not making light of my question. As one honourable member to another, I have to accept that and I apologize for any wrong impression I might have cast about her in my question.

The Speaker: That's a gracious gesture. That's what this House is all about.

PETITIONS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Kinsmen/JS MacDonald school is slated for closure,

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

"To direct the Upper Canada District School Board to remove the notice of closure for the Kinsmen/JS MacDonald special school facility.

"Since 1963 the special education facility has adequately served the needs of those students requiring special education programs and services throughout Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh.

"Presently, the Kinsmen school meets the needs of 45 children ranging from minor learning disabilities, behavioural to more complex multi-challenges."

I submit this petition with my full support. I affix my signature to that.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I have a petition here from thousands of people, and it reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Bill 74 diminishes quality education for students in this province by ensuring teachers will be responsible for more students each day and will therefore have less time for each student;

"Whereas Bill 74 attacks the very heart of local democracy and accountability by creating a system of informers and absolute powers for the Minister of Education;

"Whereas Bill 74 cuts not only the heart out of education but also the spirit by making teachers perform voluntary activities on threat of termination;

"Whereas Bill 74 is an unprecedented attack on the collective bargaining rights of Ontario's teachers; and

"Whereas Bill 74 turns over all control over education in this province to one person, the Minister of Education;

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

"We call on the government to hold public hearings on Bill 74 immediately."

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

KARLA HOMOLKA

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo were responsible for terrorizing entire communities in southern Ontario; and

"Whereas the Ontario government of the day made a deal with the devil with Karla Homolka resulting in a sentence that does not truly make her pay for her crimes; and

"Whereas our communities have not yet fully recovered from the trauma and sadness caused by Karla Homolka; and

"Whereas Karla Homolka believes that she should be entitled to passes to leave prison with an escort; and

"Whereas the people of Ontario believe that criminals should be forced to serve sentences that reflect the seriousness of their crimes;

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

"That the government of Ontario will:

"Do everything within its power to ensure that Karla Homolka serves her full sentence;

"Continue to reform parole and make it more difficult for serious offenders to return to our streets;

"Fight the federal government's plan to release up to 1,600 more convicted criminals on to Ontario streets; and

"Ensure that the Ontario government's sex offender registry is functioning as quickly as possible."

I'm pleased to affix my signature to this petition.

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition from a number of residents from my riding of Davenport which reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ontario disability support plan recipients have not had an increase in their benefits for 10 years; and

"Whereas the cost of living has been constantly increasing in the past 10 years; and

"Whereas Premier Mike Harris and his government should realize that the cost of basic essential services has been on a continual rise, eg to have a basic telephone line 10 years ago was only approximately $12 a month; today that is $20 a month; and

"Whereas it is not acceptable for ODSP"-that's the Ontario disability support plan-"recipients to be forced to live below the standard of living because they are assessed disabled and unable to work,

"Therefore we, the undersigned, request Premier Mike Harris and his government to immediately increase the Ontario disability support plan benefits."

Since I agree with this petition, I'm signing my name to it.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It's been signed by 287 Sudbury and area secondary school teachers. It reads as follows:

"Whereas Bill 74 diminishes quality education for students in this province by ensuring teachers will be responsible for more students every day and will therefore have less time for each student;

"Whereas Bill 74 attacks the very heart of local democracy and accountability by creating a system of informers and absolute powers for the Minister of Education;

"Whereas Bill 74 cuts not only the heart out of education but also the spirit by making teachers perform voluntary activities on threat of termination;

"Whereas Bill 74 is an unprecedented attack on the collective bargaining rights of Ontario's teachers; and

"Whereas Bill 74 turns over all control over education in this province to one person, the Minister of Education;

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

"We call on the government to hold public hearings on Bill 74 immediately."

ABORTION

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I have a petition from a number of constituents in my riding that reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ontario health system is overburdened and unnecessary spending must be cut; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health; and

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 46,000 abortions in 1995 at an estimated cost of $25 million;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

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

"Whereas the government of Ontario has stated its intention to close the Monteith Correctional Centre; and

"Whereas this closure will result in the loss of 90 jobs in Iroquois Falls and the surrounding area;

"Whereas this job loss will be devastating to the community,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We call upon the government of Ontario to cease plans to close the Monteith Correctional Centre and continue to publicly operate this facility."

As an addendum, I'd like to submit a list of school children who are under the age to have signed this petition.

CAMPING

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I agree fully with the previous petition but I have one of my own. This position is from a number of citizens from the riding of Timmins-James Bay who have petitioned the provincial government on the decision to limit camping with campers and trailers down to 21 days on crown land for the entire year. The petition reads:

"We, the undersigned, want our camping back for all summer, as it was previously, working under the Ministry of Natural Resources with an elected associate and stewards. Camping for only 21 days in a year is not justified at our campground as we have never experienced any problems in the past and have taken great care to meet and exceed all of the ministry's demands on us."

I support this petition and sign the same.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I have a petition signed by 29 people.

"Whereas 1.5 million Ontarians with disabilities face many barriers when they seek to participate in all aspects of Ontario life such as getting a job, using public goods, services and facilities such as health care and education; and

"Whereas Premier Harris promised in writing during the 1995 election to work together with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee to develop this new law, to be called the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, and to pass it in his first term; and

"Whereas the Ontario Legislature has unanimously passed three resolutions calling on the government to keep its promise; and

"Whereas the most recent resolution calls for a strong and effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act to be enacted no later than November 23, 2001; and

"Whereas there is an urgent need to achieve a barrier-free Ontario for people with disabilities; and

"Whereas any further delay in passing the Ontarians with Disabilities Act to achieve a barrier-free Ontario for all people with disabilities will hurt all Ontarians,

"Therefore, we the undersigned:

"

(1) Call on the Ontario Legislature to make sure that the Ontario government keeps its 1995 election promise, and to comply with the three resolutions of the Legislature and to pass a strong and effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act as soon as possible to achieve a barrier-free Ontario for people with disabilities;

"

(2) Call on the Ontario Legislature to ensure that there will be open, accessible public hearings on any new bill that is introduced, which will be held across Ontario, in which all who wish can participate so that Ontarians with disabilities can have a meaningful voice in this legislation."

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by hundreds of parents, students and teachers from Sudbury:

"Whereas Bill 74 diminishes quality education for all students in this province by ensuring teachers will be responsible for more students each day and will therefore have less time for each student;

"Whereas Bill 74 attacks the very heart of local democracy and accountability by creating a system of informers and absolute power for the Minister of Education;

"Whereas Bill 74 cuts not only the heart out of education but also the spirit by making teachers perform voluntary activities on threat of termination;

"Whereas Bill 74 is an unprecedented attack on the collective bargaining rights of Ontario teachers; and

"Whereas Bill 74 turns over all control over education in this province to one person, the Minister of Education:

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

"We call on the government to hold public hearings on Bill 74 immediately."

Certainly I agree with it, so I affix my signature to it.

LORD'S PRAYER

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

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

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

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

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer is a most meaningful expression of the religious convictions of many Ontario citizens;

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

"That the Parliament of Ontario maintain the use of the Lord's Prayer in its proceedings, in accordance with its long-standing established custom, and do all in its power to maintain use of this prayer in municipal chambers in Ontario."

I'm pleased to affix my signature to this petition.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I have a petition related to Bill 74, that extraordinarily draconian piece of legislation before the House. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Bill 74 diminishes quality education for students in this province by ensuring teachers will be responsible for more students each day and will therefore have less time for each student;

"Whereas Bill 74 attacks the very heart of local democracy and accountability by creating a system of informers and absolute powers for the Minister of Education;

"Whereas Bill 74 cuts not only the heart out of education but also the spirit by making teachers perform voluntary activities on threat of termination;

"Whereas bill 74 is an unprecedented attack on the collective bargaining rights of Ontario's teachers; and

"Whereas Bill 74 turns over all control over education in this province to one person, the Minister of Education;

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

"We call on the government to hold public hearings on Bill 74 immediately."

I support this strongly and I am signing my name to the petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I continue to receive petitions, organized in this case by Cecil Mackasey and Rick Roberts of CAW Local 222 and forwarded to me by Cathy Walker, the national health and safety director of the CAW. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas this year 130,000 Canadians will contract cancer and there are at minimum 17 funerals every day for Canadian workers who died from cancer caused by workplace exposure to cancer-causing substances known as carcinogens; and

"Whereas the World Health Organization estimates that 80% of all cancers have environmental causes and the International Labour Organization estimates that one million workers globally have cancer because of exposure at work to carcinogens; and

"Whereas most cancers can be beaten if government had the political will to make industry replace toxic substances with non-toxic substances; and

"Whereas very few health organizations study the link between occupations and cancer, even though more study of this link is an important step to defeating this dreadful disease;

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

"That it become a legal requirement that occupational history be recorded on a standard form when a patient presents at a physician for diagnosis or treatment of cancer and that the diagnosis and occupational history be forwarded to a central cancer registry for analysis as to the link between cancer and occupation."

On behalf of my NDP colleagues, I add my name to those of these petitioners.

LORD'S PRAYER

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer is a most meaningful expression of the religious convictions of many Ontario citizens;

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

"That the Parliament of Ontario maintain the use of the Lord's Prayer in its proceedings, in accordance with its long-standing established custom, and do all in its power to maintain use of this prayer in municipal chambers."

I'd like to sign this along with those who have already.

OPPOSITION DAY

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I move that in the opinion of this House,

That this House recognizes this government has not moved to address a growing crisis in the supply of family doctors, cancer treatment professionals, and nurses; and

That this House demands that the government finally take action on this serious problem by:

(1) Acting immediately on the recommendations of the McKendry report;

(2) Developing a provincial strategy for the training and recruitment of cancer treatment professionals; and

Undertaking a recruitment and retention plan for nursing.

This is an important motion that we've presented before the Legislature today. It's one we believe must be debated in this House. The issues related to our health are of the greatest concern to the people of this province.

There is no question that the shortage of physicians and nurses is creating a crisis in access to care in communities across Ontario. I have examples of individuals with serious medical conditions who can't get a timely diagnosis, let alone timely care. I believe these shortages are contributing to ill health in our communities, and it is even possible in cases that we cannot prove, likely cases that we can never prove, that the lack of access to timely care may be resulting in unnecessary deaths. I do not believe this government understands or accepts the urgency of this problem.

I don't believe they are acting with any sense of urgency, and we will continue to raise this issue week in and week out until some action is taken.

But even more immediate concerns about the health of Ontario residents must take precedence over this important issue of physician and nursing shortages. Five people died in Ontario last week. They died because they drank water they assumed was safe. We must talk about these five people and how five people can die in this province because of poisonous water. We need to understand how this could have happened and, even more crucial, we need to know what has to be done to make sure that this doesn't ever happen again-in Walkerton or Windsor, in Hanover or Hamilton, in Thunder Bay or even Toronto.

We asked for this debate today on the issue of the deaths of people in Walkerton, on the issue of the safety of the water supply across Ontario, because it is without any question today the most immediate concern of Ontarians who no longer feel their water, that basic essential of life and health, is safe. Unfortunately, the government said no. The government says, "No, we cannot have an independent inquiry to determine what happened in Walkerton and what needs to be done to make certain that no more individuals die because of polluted water." We can and we must talk about access to health care, and that's what this resolution before the House speaks to today.

There's no doubt in my mind that people are extremely concerned that they're going to have to continue to travel to the United States for cancer care-for as long as another year and a half, according to Cancer Care Ontario-and that they're having to travel out of their home communities to get cancer care simply because we don't have enough radiation therapists or enough radiation oncologists to provide timely care closer to home. Why?

Because of a government that failed to take into account the consequences of its actions; for example, when it decided to shut down the radiation therapy training programs because at that time they thought there was a surplus of radiation therapists. Now we can't produce enough radiation therapists to provide the cancer care we need here in Ontario.

We have to talk about access to health care because I know Ontarians are extremely concerned that they can't get a family doctor. When we first started raising this issue last fall, there were 100 communities in Ontario that were officially underserviced for family physicians. Now we have 106 communities underserviced. We are at least 451 family doctors short by the government's own official count. I think it's important that we ask why people are without care.

I have a constituent who's a 13-year-old girl. She has severe headaches that have kept her out of school since last November. She can't get an MRI to get a diagnosis of the cause of her headaches until July 11 because of the shortage of radiologists. I have a constituent who requires surgery for a cataract that is advancing rapidly. She can't get an appointment even for a consultation with an ophthalmologist until July 2001.

I think we need to understand that lives will be jeopardized because the national blood plasma centre in Thunder Bay is being forced to close because of a shortage of doctors to supervise it.

These are serious situations which in some cases could have potentially deadly consequences for people in this province. These are serious, potentially deadly consequences of this government's failure to act to address the need for more doctors, for more nurses, for more cancer specialists and therapists. But I would suggest to you that the most deadly consequences of this government's refusal to act were most tragically apparent in Walkerton last week when five deaths gave us evidence of what happens when a government shirks its responsibility for public health.

The motion we have before the House today speaks to the immediate implementation of the recommendations of the McKendry commission. Dr Robert McKendry was the government's own commissioner, appointed to determine whether there was a shortage of physicians. He reported back in December to say, "Yes, indeed, there is a shortage." It is not, as the Premier said in Thunder Bay just a few weeks ago, any longer just a distribution problem, a maldistribution of physicians. There is a shortage of physicians across this province. It is a shortage, according to Dr McKendry, which is becoming more critical every day.

The McKendry commission urged this government to act. The government's response was to appoint a task force.

The McKendry commission advised this government to take immediate action to increase medical school enrolment. They said there should be an increase of at least 55 students in medical schools this fall. The government didn't act and now it's too late to act-another year lost in dealing with this critical shortage of physicians. The government obviously thought the public was concerned about this because they took it seriously enough to play word games in the budget, when they said the government was acting immediately to implement the McKendry recommendations to increase the number of medical school spaces, only they weren't acting to increase the number of medical school spaces at all.

The government knew there was a public concern about health care, but they simply played games. They refused to act. They ignored the advice of their own commissioner. That's exactly what this government did with the Environmental Commissioner's report, in which she talked about the need for a groundwater strategy. They ignored it and they fired the commissioner.

It seems to be a habit of this government: A commissioner goes out and brings back news the government might be required to act on, to put some resources into, something which might divert them from their agenda, where there is a Robert McKendry report saying, "Yes, there is a shortage of physicians; you've got to increase the number of spaces in medical school," or Eva Ligeti, the Environmental Commissioner, saying, "We have a problem with groundwater, and government, you've got to act to put in place a groundwater strategy." What did the government do with that report?

Not only did they ignore it but they fired the bringer of news they didn't want to hear. They fired Eva Ligeti, the Environmental Commissioner.

They didn't deal with the issue. They hoped everyone would forget about the concerns the Environmental Commissioner raised. They hoped no one would notice the concerns the auditor raised in his report about provincial cuts to the Ministry of the Environment and the fact that drinking water testing was no longer being audited by the Ministry of the Environment.

The Mike Harris government didn't just walk away from its responsibility to ensure the health of Ontarians by ensuring safe drinking water; it deliberately dumped the cost and the responsibility for ensuring the safety of our drinking water on to the municipalities. It shut down the Ministry of the Environment labs in the name of efficiency, even though we knew it would be three to five times the cost to do the testing in private labs.

This was one only too tragic example of a government following its ideological cost-cutting agenda with blinders on and refusing to see the consequences of its actions, in fact deliberately not wanting to see or to understand the consequences of its actions.

This government doesn't seem to care about the consequences of its refusal to act on the health of the citizens of this province. I think, for example, of the decision this government made in its first year in office to cut the budgets of hospitals and to see 10,000 nurses laid off. Did they care about the consequences to the health of Ontarians? Did they care what that would do to the ability to provide, for example, timely surgery, so that now we have a shortage of surgical nurses and surgery has been cancelled because there isn't a nurse in the operating room?

Go to Woodstock and talk to the Woodstock hospital about why they can't get a general surgeon-because they can't staff the operating room with nurses, a consequence of an action which this government took, which they chose not to see and not to understand.

This motion today speaks to a shortage of nurses. We are told we need 63,000 to 93,000 nurses over the next ten years. Where are they going to come from? How many more cancelled surgeries are we going to have? How many more individuals will go without nursing care at home because the community care access centres can't get enough nurses to deliver the care that even this government, with its rationing, would allow?

I believe that some things are and must be a responsibility of government. Protecting the health of the citizens of Ontario is very clearly a responsibility of the provincial government. Part of that responsibility is to provide access to health care. Part of that responsibility is to ensure there are enough health care professionals to provide care in a timely way. But part of the responsibility for health is also about providing safe access to the necessities of life and health.

I submit to you that this government has not accepted its fundamental responsibility for ensuring the health of its citizens. The Mike Harris government was prepared to sacrifice the health of its citizens to save dollars by shutting down water testing labs, turning them over to the private sector. Is that the answer we're now seeing from this government on the shortages of health professionals?

If you can't get an MRI because there is a shortage of radiologists, maybe you can find a private MRI, something which has happened recently in the greater Toronto area with the apparent encouragement of the Ministry of Health. Or maybe you should just go down to the United States, where they may have a radiologist who can do the MRI to get you the diagnosis you need.

The government is responding to the need for access to health care in the same way that they responded to the need to protect the safety of Ontario residents by ensuring the safety of their drinking water: They simply ignored their responsibility, ignored any sense of the consequences of the actions they were taking.

I am concerned that this government will continue to wash its hands of its responsibility for waiting times to see a physician, waiting times to get surgery and waiting times to get a timely diagnosis. I know why they won't increase the number of medical school spaces: because it would cost dollars and because that would interfere with their tax cuts. So they ignore the consequences. They refuse to act. They abandon their responsibility for health care, just as the Mike Harris government abandoned its responsibility for the health of the residents of Walkerton, because its priority was not health; its priority was and is tax cuts.

This motion today calls on the government to act on a matter of urgency in ensuring access to health care, to physicians, to cancer specialists and to nurses. But what we need today, even more urgently, is a broad independent inquiry into this government's abandonment of responsibility for maintaining the health of its residents by ensuring a safe water supply across communities in this province. People have died in this province who shouldn't have had to die. I'm afraid that people will die in the future because of this government's failure to act on critical issues of access to care.

We will push this government to act. We will do it day in and day out in this place, week in and week out, because we will refuse to let them continue to ignore the consequences of their actions to the detriment of the health of the residents of this province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Tony Martin): Further debate?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): I would like to speak to the resolution put forward by Mrs McLeod. As some members of the House know, I was named by the Premier as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, specifically to rural health care. As such, I have spent some time since that appointment travelling to many rural areas around the province to look at many of the issues that the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan has raised.

I have met with doctors, with chief executive officers of hospitals, with community care access people, with nurses, with nurse practitioners-anyone connected with health care. We travelled to Wiarton, Owen Sound and Walkerton in the early part of April, where we met with hospital administrators, community care access administration and physician recruitment committees to discuss all of those issues, as well as many others.

On April 12 we met with some OMAFRA people in the Guelph area. On April 26 we went to the Grimsby area and met with people from all over the Niagara Peninsula. On May 3 we travelled to Collingwood where we met Dr Wells, who is of the rural Ontario medical program, with respect to training doctors to practise in rural medicine, a genuine concern. There are 100 underserviced areas in this province. It's a very serious issue. People all over the province are looking for doctors.

The difficulty is, of course, in the urban areas, in Toronto, I've talked to people who have a choice of which doctor they're going to see, so there is an inequity between people who are out in the rural communities and people who are below Highway 401.

On May 10 we went to Minden and Haliburton and we talked to health care providers and recruitment individuals. On May 17 we saw the dean of Western university's school of medicine, Dr Carol Herbert, who has recently come from British Columbia, who has a perspective on rural health care, as to the education that's going on of medical students. We also met with Dr Jim Roark, who is the director of SWORM, which is the initials for Southwestern Ontario Rural Medicine. He is a practising physician, as well as a teacher at Western university.

He's trying to develop a concept which really hasn't been completed yet-I think he's four years into the program-of encouraging students to receive their education while attending Western university in many of the rural communities around southwestern Ontario. He believes it's going to work and he believes that the province of Ontario should get into many of these types of initiatives at universities to encourage students to receive their education in rural communities.

In your area, sir, up in the north, in Sault Ste Marie, we heard many requests for a northern medical school to encourage students to go there, because most of the education in this province is received in the large urban areas, with expensive medical equipment. There are all kinds of people they can talk to, specialists. Then they go out into the rural communities and there's no one to talk to and they don't have the equipment. It's a genuine problem that Ontario society has, which the Ministry of Health is working on.

We then went to Ottawa and talked to rural communities around Ottawa, particularly in the Champlain district. Last week, which was constituency week, I travelled to the north. We went to Sudbury, we went to Timmins, we went to Chapleau, we went to Sault Ste Marie and we went to Thunder Bay. We had discussions with all kinds of people, who had flown in from such places as Dryden, Sioux Lookout, Wawa and other areas. In fact, there's a definition in the north, Mr Speaker, and as you know, as a member from the north, it's no longer called "underserviced," it's called "remote," because of the great distances in the north.

The problems around this province with respect to health care, in rural communities at least, are basically the same types of issues. In the north, of course, there's more emphasis on certain issues, particularly with the shortage of doctors, because of the great distances. You talk to people who are on dialysis who have to travel 250 miles one way three times a week to receive dialysis treatment.

We start asking people, "What does the public want?" This is the question I ask in all the communities: "What does the public want for health care, specifically in the rural communities?" The second question I ask is, is what they want reasonable? Finally, are they prepared to pay for it? We in the province of Ontario spend somewhere between 35% and 40% of our budget on health care. Should we spend 40%? Should we spend 50%? Should we spend 60%?

We are not going to raise any more taxes in this province. We are not going to increase the debt of this province. We're not going to increase the deficit of this province. We're not going to do that. Everyone I talk to has no problem with that. They all need more resources, particularly in the rural areas, particularly in your community in the north, Mr Speaker-and I shouldn't be picking on you personally, but I know you're from the Sault Ste Marie area, and the questions there are similar. But those questions need to be asked.

We went to these communities. We met with people from the aboriginal communities. Of course we got into the funding, which is partially provincial and partially federal. When I went to these communities I stayed away from the issue we've debated for some time in this House, which is that we believe the federal government should participate more in health care in this province, specifically rural health care, which is what I'm charged with.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): Did you tell them about the $5-billion excess?

Mr Tilson: We didn't get into that, but that's fairly evident. The Prime Minister says he wants a meeting with provincial ministers some time in the fall, if we don't have an election. I hope he comes forward with funding and I hope he doesn't do it just because there's going to be an election. Clearly the federal government needs to contribute more funding as their share if they're going to participate in all the issues involving health care.

These problems exist all across the country. It's not just specific to this province. There are problems that we as a Legislature and we as a government on this side are going to have to deal with. For example, we talked about the shortage of doctors; we talked about improving the administration of community care access centres; we talked about primary care. Most people seem to be in support of primary care, although there are different variations of primary care, at least in the rural communities.

The fine-tuning of networking: There are some communities that are very concerned about networking; others support it because they realize there comes a point when there is no more money unless you start cutting from other things, so they accept that.

We have a problem with the aging population. We have a problem with the aging population of the medical profession. We have a problem of people retiring to communities such as Haliburton. I was up in Haliburton and people are moving to their cottages and winterizing their cottages, hence putting a stress and a strain on health services in those communities. That is a problem.

There is the issue of remoteness in the north and the whole philosophy of education of doctors. Everyone acknowledges that we have to change how we do things with respect to educating people who are going into medicine, encouraging people who perhaps do not have the financial resources, particularly from the north, to get into the medical profession.

I'm talking medical profession. Yes, I'm talking about practitioners, but I'm also talking about nurses and nurse practitioners. We have to look at all kinds of other things-midwifery-all kinds of