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

October 11, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-Oct-11 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 11 October 2001 Jeudi 11 octobre 2001

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'EAU POTABLE SAINE

ETHICS AND TRANSPARENCY

IN PUBLIC MATTERS ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'ÉTHIQUE

ET LA TRANSPARENCE DES QUESTIONS

D'INTÉRÊT PUBLIC

SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'EAU POTABLE SAINE

ETHICS AND TRANSPARENCY

IN PUBLIC MATTERS ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'ÉTHIQUE

ET LA TRANSPARENCE DES QUESTIONS

D'INTÉRÊT PUBLIC

SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'EAU POTABLE SAINE

ETHICS AND TRANSPARENCY

IN PUBLIC MATTERS ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'ÉTHIQUE

ET LA TRANSPARENCE DES QUESTIONS

D'INTÉRÊT PUBLIC

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BRUCE FORBES

FIREFIGHTERS

EARLY LEARNING STRATEGY

NEWMARKET GIRLS SOFTBALL TEAM

TOM JOY

SAFE DRINKING WATER LEGISLATION

PROGRESS CAREER

PLANNING CENTRE

NUCLEAR SAFETY

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION

BRANCH 124

JEAN POIRIER

SPEAKER'S RULING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LOI DE 2001

SUR LES LANGUES DE LA CAPITALE

DU CANADA (OTTAWA) /

CAPITAL CITY OF CANADA (OTTAWA)

LANGUAGES ACT, 2001

VITAL STATISTICS

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

(SECURITY OF DOCUMENTS), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES STATISTIQUES DE L'ÉTAT CIVIL

(SÉCURITÉ DES DOCUMENTS)

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SECURITY OF VITAL DOCUMENTS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT /

FRAIS DE TRANSPORT

AUX FINS MÉDICALES

TOURISM

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

SECURITY OF VITAL DOCUMENTS

TOURISM

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

TAXATION

INTELLIGENCE GATHERING

BY POLICE

SAFETY AND SECURITY

OF DRINKING WATER

HEALTH CARE FRAUD

SCHOOL BUS FUNDING

ONTARIO'S PROMISE

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

HEALTH CARE ACCESS

LITERACY TEST

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

SCHOOL BUS FUNDING

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRES

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

PERSONAL NEEDS ALLOWANCE

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HOME CARE

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PROHIBITING PROFITING

FROM RECOUNTING CRIMES ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 INTERDISANT

LES GAINS TIRÉS

DU RÉCIT D'ACTES CRIMINELS

Thursday 11 October 2001 Jeudi 11 octobre 2001

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'EAU POTABLE SAINE

Ms Churley moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 3,

An Act to restore public confidence in the quality of drinking water in Ontario / Projet de loi 3, Loi visant à rétablir la confiance publique

dans la qualité de l'eau potable en Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member has up to 10 minutes for her presentation.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): This bill before us today is the same as Bill 96, a bill that came into this House in the year 2000, a

bill that I believe all members in this House supported on second reading. Unfortunately, it was sent by the government House leader of the day to what's known as committee of the whole, and we all

know in this place that when a bill is sent to what's called the committee of the whole, it dies. So I was not given and this House was not given the opportunity to send a bill which in fact passed

on second reading out to a standing committee for public comment.

I'm here again today to put forward a very important bill at this time in Ontario. The people of Ontario have the right to clean and safe drinking water. Clean,

safe drinking water is a basic human entitlement and essential for the protection of public health. We always took that for granted until the unthinkable happened: seven people died and over 2,000

became ill as a result of drinking water that came out of their taps. We used to think that when we turned on our taps the water was safe to drink. It was a wakeup call for all of us and now this

bill that I'm putting forward again today is to ensure that the people of Ontario have safe drinking water.

Drinking water standards should be reviewed and revised frequently. Information about drinking water quality should be freely available. Drinking water issues

should be dealt with by the provincial and municipal levels of government working in partnership, the way it used to be, and the process for making decisions about drinking water issues should be

transparent and accountable.

I'm going to tell you the main components of the bill once again and go into each of them briefly: testing by accredited labs -- if the government does want to

bring back the private labs, the testing should be done by accredited labs; strict notification requirements; strong community right-to-know provisions; an offence to pollute water; significant

fines; judicial review of actions of the Minister of the Environment. The bill would establish a water advisory council; require the minister to undertake research on water issues; and require the

minister to come forward with an annual state of safe drinking water report, an annual review of regulations and safe drinking water fund.

We're not reinventing the wheel here. A safe drinking water bill has been in existence in the United States for some time. The bill that I've put forward takes

some of those provisions and adds some, shall I say, made-in-Ontario provisions as well.

I'm going to tell you a bit about each of those now.

The water shall be tested by a water testing lab that is accredited. Results of all tests must be reported to the MOE; immediate notification to water users, the

medical officer of health and the MOE where a test reveals a contaminant or substance exceeds the maximum permitted levels, a test is delayed or cannot be performed for any reason, or equipment for

testing water or purifying water is malfunctioning; and water suppliers must keep full records of all tests and make those records available to any person, on request.

The community right-to-know provisions is a very important aspect of this bill: immediate notification to water users where a test reveals contamination or a

substance that exceeds the prescribed standards, a required test is delayed or cannot be conducted, or if water equipment malfunctions; open access to the public of water test results; summaries of

test results provided to water users with their water bill; creation by the ministry of an electronic water quality registry that would be available to any person, without charge. The registry

would include the following: test results on a community-by-community basis; copies of all certificates of approval issued to public water suppliers; a list of all accredited water testing labs;

details of any water advisory notices issued; information about convictions under the act; and information about civil action reviews under the act.

The bill also makes it an offence for a public water supplier to supply water that exceeds the maximum permitted level for any contaminant or substance that

contravenes the prescribed standard. It makes it an offence to pollute the water and there are fines of up to $1 million a day if such an offence occurs.

There are judicial remedies. The minister can apply for a restraining order to stop any individual from contravening the requirements under the act, regulations

or certificate of approval. A person who suffers damage under the act may bring an action for damage. Any person may seek judicial review of the minister's exercise or non-exercise of power.

Then there's the water advisory council. The purpose of this is to conduct research on water issues and advise the minister of the results of that research, and

it would include -- it would be far-reaching -- drinking water quality, prescribed standards, contaminants and substances and their effects, or any other matter that affects drinking water

quality.

This bill spells out specifically the responsibilities of the minister.

The safe drinking water fund is another important component. We all know from the last couple of days, in talking about SuperBuild and the fact that some of this

money was supposed to be allocated to communities and municipalities to improve their sewer and water systems, that money hasn't flowed. Some communities are asking the government right now to

delay the date when their new regulations have to be met because the government has not put the money in place so that they can meet those requirements. That's crazy. Why put in new regulations

when the money isn't there to make sure that municipalities can indeed make sure those regulations are adhered to?

This bill before us today has the support of many people across the province -- I would say all the people across the province -- including all the major

environmental groups. The Canadian Environmental Law Association said -- this is about the government's new regulations, which I know the government members will stand up, as they did the last

time, and say, "We don't need your bill. We have new regulations." But I'm going to tell you right now what TEA and CELA have both said about the government's new regulations. This is what their

new regulations do not do and why we need this bill.

It does not "create a clear statutory right to clean and safe drinking water." That's pretty fundamental, I would say. It does not "require the environment

minister to create a water quality registry which compiles all water-testing results from public water suppliers." It does not "require the environment minister to publicly report on the state of

Ontario's drinking water, to conduct research into drinking water matters, or to establish a special fund to provide financial assistance to public water suppliers." It does not "impose a mandatory

duty upon public water suppliers to notify consumers if there are operational problems (ie, equipment breakdown) or testing delays or difficulties." It does not "prohibit tampering with or

degrading public water supplies or threatening or attempting to do so." It does not "prohibit public water suppliers from providing drinking water that exceeds the maximum permitted levels for

contaminants." It does not "require citizen enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with the regulation." It does not "create a statutory cause of action allowing citizens to sue violators of

the regulation." It does not "impose a mandatory duty upon drinking water suppliers to assess the vulnerability of drinking water sources to contamination."

Dr Murray McQuigge, the medical officer of health in Walkerton, called the government's new regulations on drinking water inadequate.

The Canadian Environmental Defence Fund and Pollution Probe, together with CARD of Balsam Lake, the Coalition of Concerned Citizens of Caledon, the Fort Erie

Water Advocacy Group, Four Corners Environmental Group -- that's in Walkerton -- the Mariposa Aquifer Protection Association in Woodville, Save the Rouge Valley System, Stuart Hall Against

Mismanaged Environment in Peterborough, Waring's Creek Improvement Association -- and there are more -- are some of the groups that have indicated their strong support for this bill. They say, "We

support the intentions of Bill 96" -- we're talking about Bill 3 today; only the number has changed -- "An Act to restore public confidence in the quality of drinking water in Ontario." They say

it's "a great start for providing the citizens of Ontario with access to safe, clean water; however, we would like to see the issue of safe drinking water come before a parliamentary committee of

the Legislature."

That is what I'm asking people to do today. If you have some concerns and problems with the bill -- and there always are concerns and problems with new bills,

granted -- that's why we send it out to committee. We pass second reading and send it out to committee. I urge all members in the House today to allow that to happen.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): First of all, I want to congratulate my friend the member for Toronto-Danforth on her recent appointment as

deputy leader of the NDP caucus. I haven't had the chance to do so publicly. Congratulations, Marilyn.

I want to acknowledge her sincere interest in bringing Bill 3, this proposed Safe Drinking Water Act, before the Legislature this morning. On behalf of my

constituents in Waterloo-Wellington, I want to thank her for continuing a discussion on an issue that is important to all of us.

Next to the air we breathe, there is no more important resource than the water that we drink. We all need it, and we all need to know that it's safe -- now, for

our children, for our grandchildren and for generations to come. That's why the citizens of Ontario were shocked and saddened with the tragedy that took place over a year ago in Walkerton. They

want answers about what happened and they want assurances that such an incident will never take place again. Bill 3 is laudable because, through its stated intent, it captures that spirit and

speaks to what the citizens of Ontario want.

The bill states that people who use public water systems in Ontario have a right to receive clean and safe drinking water, that public confidence must be

restored, and that water quality must be protected and enhanced.

We agree, as many of us did when the first version of this bill, Bill 96, was debated and passed at second reading in September of last year, and I agree, that

these issues need to be discussed in the Ontario Legislature. For our part, I would say that this bill provides a good opportunity to discuss how both its spirit and practical goals have either

been met or surpassed by the government of Ontario.

The main provisions in this legislation are already in place, particularly in Ontario's drinking water protection regulation. Waterworks authorities are

regularly and frequently taking samples and tests of the water they treat. They are using accredited laboratories. Reports of potentially unsafe water situations are being communicated immediately,

person to person, to the Ministry of the Environment, the local medical officer of health and the owner of the waterworks.

Former drinking water quality objectives and quality limits have been made more stringent and are now standards that have the force of law. If waterworks fail to

meet quality standards, corrective actions are initiated, and it's an offence if these corrective actions are not carried out.

The government has also initiated stringent water quality measures that are not recommended in Bill 3. These include mandatory engineering reports for all

waterworks, the review of certificates of approval at the three-year point and public notice requirements where the water is unsafe and corrective actions are underway.

In August 2000, Operation Clean Water initiated a rapid strategy that included the following measures: tough, clear standards to improve the quality of drinking

water; inspection and enforcement to stop noncompliant activities that threaten water quality; tougher penalties for non-compliance; and strategic investments and innovative delivery practices to

ease the burden of compliance with regulations.

We are taking the time to think, plan and act so we can ensure that the people of Ontario have clean and safe drinking water everywhere throughout the

province.

The Ontario government appointed Justice Dennis O'Connor with a sweeping mandate to explore all relevant matters relating to ensuring the safety of Ontario's

drinking water. The government has co-operated fully with the inquiry, and we anticipate the release of Justice O'Connor's findings in the near future. It would be most inappropriate to prejudge

the outcome, however, and I know that the Minister of the Environment is looking forward to receiving Mr Justice O'Connor's findings and responding to his recommendations in a positive way.

Another important step occurred in July 2001, this past summer, when the Ministry of the Environment proposed the drinking water protection regulation for

designated facilities. This regulation would include strict requirements for schools, day nurseries and nursing and retirement homes as well as social and health care facilities that have their own

water supply system and do not fall under the existing drinking water protection regulation.

The government has also taken preliminary steps to recognize the need to invest in water and sewer infrastructure. Ontario has committed a minimum of $240

million under the first round of SuperBuild's Ontario small-town and rural development infrastructure, or OSTAR, program. We obviously realize that many municipalities use groundwater and that

thousands of residences and businesses use private wells to draw groundwater for their own use. Therefore, the Ontario government is developing a comprehensive, multidisciplinary range of actions

linked together as part of the groundwater strategy.

One aspect is investment. Ontario will provide $10 million for municipal groundwater studies, the largest single investment in groundwater source protection in

the province's history. The government is also developing a provincial groundwater monitoring network with Conservation Ontario, its members, its member conservation authorities and municipalities

across the province.

The network will provide an early warning system for changes in water levels caused by climate or human activities and information on regional trends in

groundwater quality. We have signed agreements with 25 conservation authorities and have already established monitoring stations in a number of them. When complete, the $6-million groundwater

monitoring network will include 400 electronic monitors across the province.

On July 13, 2001, the Ontario government introduced legislation to address land-applied materials containing nutrients, including those nutrients which in

Waterloo-Wellington are more commonly known as manure. This legislation includes standards for nutrient-rich materials spread on farmland and a proposal to ban the land application of untreated

septage over a five-year period. It also proposes new requirements such as the review and approval of nutrient management plans, certification of land applicators and a new registry system for all

land applications.

In conclusion, the government is taking the needed steps to improve the way we protect and enhance drinking water quality. We are committed to seeing that the

very best understanding of science and administration is harnessed into action that delivers and continues to improve upon what the citizens of Ontario need and so rightly expect: safe and clean

drinking water, second to none.

I thank the member for Toronto-Danforth for providing us with this opportunity to discuss how we are meeting water quality needs and how, in some cases, we are

even overachieving what has been proposed in the legislation before us this morning.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): For a number of years, legislation of this kind has been called for, and governments have struggled with

the exact wording of this kind of legislation. We've had before the House a number of bills and a number of suggestions in regard to the improvement of water quality in Ontario.

What obviously focused the most attention on this issue was the tragic event that took place in Walkerton, Ontario, where seven people died from drinking the

water that was provided by a municipal system and where over 1,000 people were seriously ill; others were ill to a less serious degree, but it impacted an entire community. It certainly eroded the

confidence that the people of that community and indeed the people of Ontario had in the quality of water that was coming through their taps. That was most unfortunate. While some were apprehensive

about the quality of water, most people felt that the quality of water in the province was safe and that an event of this kind couldn't happen, that this was something that happened somewhere else,

where they didn't have the technology and where there wasn't the know-how to deal with issues of this kind.

So Walkerton was a major watershed in terms of the issue of the quality of drinking water in the province. But the warnings were there and the warnings have been

there for some time from both the Environmental Commissioner and the Provincial Auditor. There are those who always say, "Well, the opposition is going to say this. What do you expect?" I and

others on this side of the House have had an opportunity to quote what the Provincial Auditor, Erik Peters -- he's completely neutral -- and the Environmental Commissioner have had to say. Both

have been condemning of the record of the government in terms of dealing with water issues, and I think there is justification in that.

I certainly believe that the drinking water surveillance program, which was growing on an incremental basis each year until the government decided to impose

constraint -- which you're going to see more of, by the way -- was quite good. It spotted problems; it identified problems. There was a dedicated team within the Ministry of the Environment that

went around from one place to another where there was a municipal water supply and inspected it carefully. This isn't something where you walk in, and walk out half an hour later. This can take up

to a week or perhaps even longer, counting the paperwork that has to be done. It was a very detailed program, you had top-notch people within the ministry doing it, and this program was allowed to

diminish in its importance within the ministry until the issue of Walkerton happened. Then we had a so-called blitz of the water treatment plants in the province by a team, some of whom would not

have had the kinds of qualifications that this original team would have to do it.

We used to have a timely report on drinking water in each of the places in Ontario so that local people could put the pressure on as well, the local

municipality. There was a generous program of funding from the Ministry of the Environment. I was talking to a person the other day from the regional municipality of Niagara, and they are now

squabbling over $39 million in so-called SuperBuild funding. I can tell you, routinely that kind of money used to be forthcoming to the regional municipality of Niagara. I can remember some major

sewage treatment and water treatment plant grants that were made from the Ministry of the Environment -- I can recall because I was minister at the time -- to areas such as Niagara and other areas

in the province that were substantially above this $39 million that we see today. It was routinely done.

I'm concerned, with the so-called SuperBuild funding and the OSTAR funding, that the Minister of the Environment doesn't have the prerogative of determining on

an environmental basis where this money should go. Yesterday in estimates the minister was quite defensive, as she has to be for the government, but I'm sure she feels it would be better if her

ministry could determine on an environmental basis where the needs are instead of where the political needs of the government are. Let me tell members of the Legislature that this is exactly what

SuperBuild is going to be about. It's going to be determining politically who is going to get it. It works much better when it is otherwise.

Again, when I recall my days as minister, a lot of the money was spent from time to time in so-called opposition ridings. Why was that the case? Because there

were needs that were clearly identified environmentally in those ridings. The Ministry of the Environment staff made the recommendations and the money was flowed to those municipalities.

Today that money is essentially choked off. OSTAR is not only for water, by the way, but is for bridges, roads and other emergency circumstances, and it's for

smaller municipalities. What is happening is that the amount the government will give in any particular instance is so small that a place such as Niagara-on-the-Lake is unable to take advantage of

the funding because they can't come up with the additional funding that's required. I suspect that's the case around Ontario. So there are a lot of announcements made by ministers out there, but

seeing the money actually flowed, actually invested, is not something we often see.

There's a need to update water systems. I think we had about 30 water systems, some of them in major places such as North Bay, that didn't have what we would

expect -- normal filtration methods. Yes, bacteria could be killed through chlorine being applied to the water supply, but they were subject to cryptosporidium and other organisms that could attack

the water. You remember that in the Collingwood area there was a circumstance of this kind. The best example I can think of is certainly the city of Milwaukee, which was confronted with over 100

people having died and thousands who were ill as a result of cryptosporidium. That was in a major municipality where one would suspect they would have the best treatment equipment. We have to treat

this problem, this challenge, seriously.

Don't forget sewage treatment plants as well. They've been pushed into the background, but sewage treatment plants are designed to take waste water and treat

that water so that when it goes back into natural waterways, it is of an acceptable value, an acceptable quality. I believe we're not investing the kind of funds we need in, first of all, the

capacity of sewage treatment plants, but also the sophistication of the equipment. We need the staff, which gets down to the issue of staffing and of financial resources.

The Ministry of the Environment as well as the Ministry of Natural Resources, which by the way has some responsibility for water quality, have both been

devastated by cuts by this government. I have a fear that we're going to see more cuts. Why is that going to happen? As I said yesterday, I'm not getting into a long philosophical argument, but if

you're going to give over $2 billion to corporations in tax cuts, that's going to be revenue that is lost to the ministries. I say to government members who are not in the cabinet, and maybe

they've already warned you of this, the Treasurer is going to be saying to the cabinet and to caucus in a short period of time, "We don't have the revenues coming in. We're going to have to apply

an in-year constraint." So the Minister of the Environment will not have the funding to be able to carry out her responsibilities. You're going to see that in all the ministries. Why is that going

to happen? Because there will not be the revenues to be able to meet the understandable needs the Ministry of the Environment will have.

You'll have to deal with the issue of the sludge that comes from sewage treatment plants and now is spread on farmlands. You'll have to deal with the rules for

the spreading of that and with the staff that's necessary to inspect and approve any of the proposals for the spreading of sludge. There are a lot of issues around sludge that have to be addressed,

and unfortunately they're not being addressed as well as they should be. My friend from Durham East brought a bill brought before the House. He knows the problems he's encountering in his area and

that is not resolved to this point in time, and it has to be resolved.

Also, there is intensive farming, or industrial farming as I would call it. I don't think what the government has proposed so far is going to work. I think the

timelines are too distant in consideration of what we really need in the province.

I say, as well, that with one third of the staff of the Ministry of the Environment fired out the door when the government got involved in its cutting and with

about 45% of the operating budget gone out the door, the ministry doesn't have the staff and financial resources to carry out its responsibilities.

I personally think that the laboratories that were operated by the Ministry of the Environment of Ontario were top-notch and that a major mistake was made when

this government closed those laboratories. Today, when we're thinking of the security of our water supply, for instance, wouldn't it be nice to know that we had reliable, top-notch, high-quality

laboratories with people with integrity and responsibility operating those laboratories, so that if an incident does arise and there's a need for a quick turnover in time and reliability and

integrity in the answers that are given, we would have a government laboratory to do so? The four laboratories in the regional bases were closed, a most unfortunate decision in terms of water

quality in this province.

There are old wells that need to be looked at. They haven't been properly capped. There's a route for some substances -- bacteria -- getting into those

wells.

Lastly, there's also the impact of chemicals that get into the water, both airborne chemicals that fall in our waterways and then make their way into our water

systems, and those that are directly or indirectly discharged into waterways in this province.

All of those issues have to be appropriately addressed. It's obviously going to require -- I know nobody likes to hear this; none of us do -- a major investment

of funds in the protection of drinking water in this province. AMO, or the Canadian municipalities, predicted it would be $9 billion to do the job properly in the province. That's an awesome task

in front of us and I think we have to address those issues appropriately.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): The problems of water quality are not unique to Canada. In fact, it's probably the number one cause of

death for young people and old people in the entire world. Across this entire land, this place we love called Canada, there are problems in every small community, from Newfoundland to British

Columbia, with their water.

Here in Ontario we should pride ourselves, being the richest, the wealthiest, the most developed province, in not having to have that problem. In fact, though,

it has been borne upon us. There is community after community in Ontario where there are orders to boil water. My own parents, who live in a small town in southern Ontario, have had an order to

boil water just this year.

We have an opportunity as the province and with this bill to show how serious we are in taking back the standards we once took for granted, that heretofore

existed and that served the people of this province very well. We have an opportunity to give back to people and to their government the confidence that has been damaged by the events of Walkerton,

damaged by the events of having to boil water in so many communities in this province.

We have an opportunity to rebuild ancient -- and I'd use that word "ancient" -- infrastructure in many of our towns and cities that was built at or before the

turn of the century, where the water systems are eroded and are no longer providing absolutely safe and pure water.

This Safe Drinking Water Act, Bill 3, is an opportunity for everyone on all sides of this House to come forward and say that a fundamental right for pure

drinking water, which is also found in United Nations charters, should also be here in Canada's wealthiest province, in Canada's wealthiest city, in Canada's towns and villages, in Ontario's towns

and villages.

In fact, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has very strongly supported this bill, or the preceding bill, number 96, and in fact in July of this year

AMO issued their Municipal Action Plan -- Protecting Ontario's Water. That plan called for a comprehensive water protection policy and legislation.

The municipalities of the province of Ontario understand that legislation is going to be needed in order to get the necessary funds to build and rebuild our

water structures.

They also have asked for resources to support timely and effective investigations. Many of the smaller communities in this province do not have the necessary

resources to do investigations and in fact only find out when it's too late -- when people are actually sick or when people actually die -- that the water is tainted or that there are problems with

their water resources.

They are asking for an investment in research and new technology. There are many exciting ways of treating water that do not necessarily involve the use of

chlorine, and I know there are many people in the environmental movement who are looking for other ways to treat water to make sure that it is at all times safe, not only when it's coming in but

when it's being treated as sewage.

They are asking as well to re-establish provincial expertise. For so many people who live in the province of Ontario, the only expertise is that which is given

by the province. Their municipalities are too small or too poor to actually have their own expertise in-house, and they are asking that the province redevelop that expertise, to go back to where it

was five or 10 years ago and to make sure that there are sufficient resources to do it.

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario is asking that this House restore provincial leadership in sharing information, in actually letting people in the

province know whether their sources of water are safe, whether there are ways to improve those sources, whether there are ways to move the water around in a more expeditious manner, and they are

asking for leadership from the province.

Last but not least, they are stating, "There is a clear provincial interest and Ontario's water quality is obviously no longer a matter for discussion. The

provincial interest in water quality is now a matter for action."

I am asking that members on all sides of the House speak to this issue and support this bill. Send it for second reading. Send it to committee to allow for

consultation with all the people of this province. Let's get back into the water game. Let's get back into making Ontario a truly great place where people are not afraid to turn on the tap.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm pleased to rise this morning and speak for a few moments on the member for Toronto-Danforth's Bill 3,

An Act to restore public confidence in the quality of drinking water in Ontario. Because Ms Churley mentioned Walkerton earlier in her comments, I'd like to make a few comments on that and what our

government has done, as well as refer to something Mr Bradley did when he talked about the sewage treatment plant aspect of quality drinking water here in Ontario.

Since May 2000, the province of Ontario, through this government, has made a number of moves to protect drinking water in our province. Since the Walkerton

tragedy, our government not only took the bold steps necessary to restore the Walkerton water supply, we also took decisive action to protect water quality throughout the province. For example, we

introduced Operation Clean Water. That's a coordinated and comprehensive provincial effort to protect water resources, which includes tough, clear standards for drinking water quality, effective

inspection and enforcement, tough penalties and strategic investments, and efficient delivery practices. I think nearly every member of a riding here has probably heard back from some of their

municipalities that may have been impacted by some of the guidelines under Operation Clean Water.

We passed the drinking water protection regulation to protect the health of Ontarians and to make the province's drinking water requirements among the toughest

in the world. We also proposed a drinking water protection regulation for designated facilities to ensure that people who are less resistant to contaminants in drinking water are protected.

We are implementing a $6-million provincial groundwater monitoring network. There's a lot of interest in that particular program and I know that in my

particular riding itself, the area of Oro-Medonte is certainly interested in tapping into some of that funding.

We also inspected all municipal water treatment plants in the province -- there are over 650 of those -- to ensure compliance with provincial legislation, and

we are committed to doing annual inspections at these plants.

We established a $240-million Ontario small-town and rural fund to help municipalities upgrade their water and sewage infrastructure. I know there have already

been a few announcements on that program.

Most recently we announced $10 million in funding for groundwater studies in Ontario municipalities. This is the largest single investment in groundwater

source protection in the province's history.

I know that this all ties in to a lot of the work we're doing on some of our moraines as well. I've got a deep concern about a moraine that's in my riding and

I want to make sure that whatever programs or regulations are put into place to protect moraines in fact protect all moraines here in the province of Ontario.

The other thing I wanted to briefly mention this morning was what Mr Bradley, the former Minister of the Environment, had mentioned earlier on sewage treatment

plants. I was very fortunate that just recently, on September 21, I had the opportunity to officially open a new sewage treatment plant in the community of Port McNicoll. It's part of the township

of Tay and it sits right on Georgian Bay as part of the Severn Sound. They opened what they called a xenon plant -- I think I've got the phrase right. It's a state-of-the-art sewage treatment plant

and basically the water that leaves this plant is almost perfect. It's almost as good as the water that comes out of your tap in the beginning. It was interesting to open this plant. It's a

$6.5-million plant and the province contributed 53% of that, so I was pleased to see that that plant helped to contribute to the water quality in the Severn Sound. Effective within the next couple

of weeks -- I think it's October 27 -- they will officially delist the Severn Sound as an area of concern on Georgian Bay. I compliment the Minister of the Environment for bringing forth this

legislation and I also compliment the former minister for bringing that through the provincial water protection fund program, which allowed the money to go forth to help with this plant in Port

McNicoll.

With that, I wish Ms Churley all the best in the further debate on this bill, and my remaining time will go over to Doug Galt from the Ministry of the

Environment.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It's been a pleasure to stand here this morning.

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): I obviously support this bill. This bill about public confidence in drinking water has really gained some

immediate attention in the riding that I have the honour of representing, St Paul's, where of course we learned today through the media that the St Clair reservoir was broken into, probably at some

point last night or early this morning. Just before 10:30 this morning, a city worker discovered the break-in, discovered some unidentified liquid in the reservoir site, and fortunately very quick

action resulted. This bill of course is about protecting water sites across the province, but I just want to emphasize to this House what's going on right now with respect to this emergency

situation in St Paul's.

I have spoken with officials in 53rd division, which obviously covered this area, as well as ministry officials. The unidentified bottle of liquid is being

tested by the forensic centre. They'll know the test results by this evening. The Ministry of the Environment is testing the water -- as we want them to do across this province through this bill --

and we should have the result by tomorrow at the latest to confirm that in fact the water has not been infected in any way.

I can tell this House and the people of St Paul's that the 100 million litres of water that is affected by this reservoir is not being distributed. The taps

have been shut off. I can't tell you with 100% assurance that it was shut off before any water was released and after the break-in. We don't know that yet. But there are detectives on site, there

are officials from the fire department hazardous materials on site, and of course there are two people right now guarding that reservoir.

My concern is that there are other reservoirs across the city and the province that are not being guarded, and that there are other sensitive sites. We spoke

yesterday about nuclear plants, but also just in St Paul's, synagogues, churches, mosques.

We are living in an era of heightened anxiety. It's important, obviously, that nobody in this House fearmonger but, at the same time, the public needs to be

informed about what has happened. I can tell you right now it's a zero-sum equation. Unless more police officers are deployed to protect these sites, unless testing is done on a widespread basis,

people are going to continue to live with some concern.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): Nothing could be more important to human life than water. We all know that and the people watching this

political program know that as well. Bill 3, the Safe Drinking Water Act, introduced by Marilyn Churley, the member from Toronto-Danforth, goes a long way to protecting that water that is so

essential to us.

To emphasize what the member from Toronto-Danforth said, when I read the Toronto Environmental Alliance and the Canadian Environmental Law Association, they

say that this new regulation the government introduced does not "create a clear statutory right to clean and safe drinking water"; does not "require the environment minister to create a water

quality registry which compiles all water testing results from public water suppliers"; does not "require the environment minister to publicly report on the state of Ontario's drinking water, to

conduct research into drinking water matters, or to establish a special fund to provide financial assistance to public water suppliers"; does not "impose a mandatory duty upon public water

suppliers to notify consumers if there are operational problems (ie, equipment breakdown) or testing delays or difficulties"; does not "prohibit tampering with or degrading public water supplies,

or threatening or attempting to do so"; does not "prohibit public water suppliers from providing drinking water that exceeds the maximum permitted levels for contaminants"; does not "create citizen

enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with the regulation"; does not "create a statutory cause of action allowing citizens to sue violators of the regulation"; and it does not "impose a

mandatory duty upon drinking water suppliers to assess the vulnerability of drinking water sources to contamination."

We know that. It says, "It does not," to so many important things as it relates to water. I say to you, what does the regulation do?

There is a fundamental role of government to protect our water and to make sure that the water we drink is safe. That's why I read out for emphasis the Toronto

Environmental Alliance statement as it relates to the new regulation as a way of saying to the government, you've got to get into the game of governing. I know you think being here is a game for

you. I know you said you came here to fix government. We're saying to you, be the government. This bill urges you to move in that direction.

I know the government, through Premier Harris, in response to a question from our leader, Howard Hampton, around Bill 96, now Bill 3, said, "It's a bill that

is merely repetitive." We asked the government, Harris and the others, is it red tape and repetitive to have

an act that recognizes that the people of Ontario have the right to clean and safe

drinking water? No, obviously. Is it repetitive and red tape to give communities the right to have information about the quality of the water they're drinking? No, we say. Is it repetitive and red

tape to immediately notify communities that their water is contaminated and ensure that an alternative supply of safe drinking water is available to them? No, we argue as New Democrats. Is it

repetitive and red tape for the minister to operate an electronic water quality registry that would inform communities about the quality of their drinking water? No, we say as New Democrats. And on

and on the list goes.

We support Bill 3, the Safe Drinking Water Act, introduced by Marilyn Churley, the member from Toronto-Danforth, and urge this party to be in government, to be

the government and start moving in the direction of this bill.

If you don't want to adopt each and every matter that is in this bill, bring in your own bill so we can debate it. Make it yours, if you want, change it and

let's debate it. But we need, as a government, to move in that direction and we hope some of the government members, if not all, will support this bill.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): First, I'd like to compliment the member for Toronto-Danforth for bringing forth this bill and having a concern

about water quality and safety in the province of Ontario. There is nothing more important than the water we drink or the air we breathe or the food we eat, and certainly, you're very familiar with

the fact we've brought in Bill 87, looking at safety and quality for food. I compliment the Honourable Brian Coburn for bringing that particular bill forward.

I also compliment the member for Beaches-East York in his comments about the sickness that occurs around the world because of water. Having lived for a year in

Indonesia, there is absolutely no question that water is one of the important factors in carrying disease in countries such as that.

I bring to mind Operation Clean Water that our government brought in just a little over a year ago. At that time, regulation 459/00, the drinking water

protection regulation, was also brought in. Really, it was an extension of the previous drinking water objectives in this province.

I wanted to talk just for a few minutes about some of the things that may not have been covered in too much detail here, some of the investments. The OSTAR

fund is some $600 million that was set aside because of the interim report of the Premier's Task Force on Rural Economic renewal. Some $240 million of that is set aside for water and sewer systems,

to upgrade those in our municipalities so that they will also, once upgraded, look at cost recovery. I would also remind you of the $200 million in the late 1990s in the provincial water protection

fund that was invested in municipal water and sewer treatment plants.

The $10 million in the groundwater studies has been mentioned, but also last year $6 million was set aside for the provincial groundwater monitoring network,

some 400 monitoring wells in the various conservation areas to look at water quality, as well as at the levels of that water.

I bring to mind Bill 81, the nutrient management bill that has been brought forward. After first reading, we've taken that out on the road for hearings and

have received a lot of interesting input from the public. That's following very extensive consultations on the part of our government to look at how we deal with nutrients on soils, putting on the

right quantity to be absorbed and consumed by plants, and to prevent any of it from leaching into the groundwater or into surface water.

I would also, just in the last few seconds, remind you of the water-taking and transfer regulations that our government brought in to prevent the export of

bulk water out of our country. The federal government wouldn't do anything. It was their area of responsibility. They failed to act, and the province came in and stopped that kind of export of

water by bringing in a regulation that would prevent the transfer between water basins in the province of Ontario.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I am pleased to rise in support of my colleague Marilyn Churley's Bill 3, which quite frankly ought

to be motherhood in this place, given all that's happening and all that has happened in the last couple of years. It's interesting; I'm not hearing any government members stand up and say, "I don't

support this bill and here's why." They dance all around it, they talk about all the programs they think are making a difference but don't acknowledge the fact that the Association of

Municipalities of Ontario, which speaks for all our cities, is in support of this.

Why? Because a lot of the programs that they're touting on the other side of the House today do not adequately deal with the issue. Whether it's because they

can't access the funds or whether because the standards you put forward aren't making the difference that we need, the fact of the matter is that there is insufficient legislative protection for

our water.

This bill today seeks to change that. I think the

preamble says it all, and I'd like to hear any government member tell me they disagree with this

preamble:

"The people of Ontario have the right to clean and safe drinking water. Clean, safe drinking water is a basic human entitlement and essential for the protection of public health."

Why would the government oppose a bill that has widespread support among the organizations and entities that are responsible for the actual delivery of water

and that clearly would have the support of the people if you went out and asked them? It's because, once again, the government talks a good story but acts in way that does virtually nothing. In

many cases we've seen that the actions they take, in terms of their words, are the opposite.

All we are seeking is that the government backbenchers, on this day when party discipline doesn't apply -- no one is going to be punished or held accountable;

they shouldn't be. I see some of the backbenchers raising some eyebrows. I have to tell you, if it is being applied in a disciplinary fashion, then you're being denied your rights as members,

because today, Thursday morning, is about each of us standing up and speaking from the heart and speaking on behalf of our constituents.

When we have a bill like this, which Marilyn Churley has put forward, that speaks to ensuring that by law Ontarians will receive safe drinking water, I don't

see how you cannot stand in your place and give your precious vote to this bill. How can you not support something so fundamental as providing clean water, particularly in light of Walkerton? How

can you do that?

The Deputy Speaker: Response?

Ms Churley: I'm encouraged by the members from the government benches who spoke. Nobody said they weren't going to support it. People did talk

about all kinds of other issues but really didn't speak directly to the bill.

I want to point out to members in the House today that the recent Environmental Commissioner's report also referred to the regulations and said they are

lacking important components and that a safe drinking water act would be an important issue to come before this House.

I also want to say to the government members, you talked about all the things you are doing. You ended the drinking water surveillance program in 1996. You

also ended the annual direct discharges report, which told us what was going into our water. You ended CURB, the Clean Up Rural Beaches program, which we heard over and over again in the committee

on nutrient management was a good program and should be brought back.

We know that in 2001, Ministry of the Environment spending in real dollars is actually below 1971-72 levels, the year when the ministry was created.

We know that OSTAR and SuperBuild -- there is no longer a dedicated fund for sewer and water projects. There's no research being done. At a time when

inspections show that many plants need to be upgraded, they are asking for your regulations to be delayed, and that's one of the problems with regulations. Not only are they lacking certain

components, but the government, willy-nilly, at its whim, can change regulations any time when what's happening out there isn't meeting the requirements, which is my fear now.

Please support this bill today and send it to committee.

The Deputy Speaker: That completes the time allocated for debate on ballot item number 23. We'll now deal with ballot item number 24.

ETHICS AND TRANSPARENCY

IN PUBLIC MATTERS ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'ÉTHIQUE

ET LA TRANSPARENCE DES QUESTIONS

D'INTÉRÊT PUBLIC

Ms Di Cocco moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 95,

An Act to require open meetings and more stringent conflict rules for provincial and municipal boards, commissions and other public bodies /

Projet de loi 95, Loi exigeant des réunions publiques et des règles plus strictes de règlement de conflit pour les commissions et conseils provinciaux et municipaux ainsi que les

autres organismes publics.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member for Sarnia-Lambton has up to 10 minutes for her presentation.

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): It is a pleasure to rise in this House and to put forth a bill that requires specified

provincial-municipal councils, boards, commissions, public bodies, as listed in the schedule, to conduct their meetings in open forums. Bill 95 is about ethics and transparency and it's called the

"ethics and transparency act." It's about ensuring open meetings, good documentation of those meetings and penalties for conflicts of interest.

In my view, this allows for more public scrutiny for those bodies that expend public dollars and make decisions that are for the public interest. We have

numerous examples across this province whereby public bodies find it more expedient to conduct their affairs behind closed doors and then they have public relations people who come out to sanitize

the version for the public. I'll give you an example that I believe has happened currently. I think it has to do with the issue of the London hospital decision to cut a number of services. These

decisions are being made, and there are other decisions that I know are being made in other hospital boards and in Sarnia as well, to cut other services, and yet the public and the specialists hear

about the decisions through the media. It isn't necessary for these bodies to conduct their affairs in the view of the public.

To me, what I find unconscionable oftentimes is that public information is provided by the many public relations people who decide how to spin the

controversial issue after the decisions have been taken behind closed doors. It is the new fashion, I guess, that decisions are vetted and sanitized for public consumption. I believe that the

public should be involved when these decisions are being debated, before the fact, not after the fact. It is important that good records be kept in the public interest. These bodies, in my view,

are there to serve in the public interest and should be subjected to public scrutiny, period. That should be the norm and not the exception.

I have spoken to a number of people as I was drafting this bill, one of whom was Ann Cavoukian. It is her opinion as well that it is important that we ensure

that public decisions are made in the public view. This bill, I'm going to share with you, has evolved from the findings at a judicial inquiry that was held in 1998 in Sarnia. It is the very reason

I believe I came to be elected as an MPP, and I find myself in this realm of the political world. The inquiry was held because decisions made by the Catholic school board and the municipality of

Clearwater misspent $6 million of taxpayers' money. The findings of this inquiry basically stated that over $6 million was proverbially "flushed down the toilet," for the most part because these

decisions were made behind closed doors.

According to the inquiry, another factor, another motivator, in the poor decision-making was the many conflicts of interest. The municipality for instance gave

a mortgage and a first right of refusal to a company whose shareholders were not even known, and to this day, the municipality still has not received one cent. And this is almost 10 years ago

now.

Conflict of interest: it was interesting that the same lawyer acted for the school board, acted for the consortium, acted for the town in the deal, and that

came out in the inquiry. One of the comments that was made during that inquiry was the fact that there was no penalty. We held this huge judicial inquiry, yet there's no penalty for the conflict of

interest or for those public bodies that held meetings behind closed doors. The personal business involvement among the players at this inquiry was quite astounding. Again, I take those findings

and that's what evolved into this bill.

The report from Justice Killeen is a vivid example of the cloak of secrecy at both Clearwater council and the Catholic school board, and it did not serve the

public interest.

In the inquiry -- and I'll just specifically state it, because this is only an example of many more bodies that don't even have to abide by an open meeting

process, and these were bodies that were supposedly to conduct their affairs in the open. I'm going to read one of the items from the inquiry. This is what Justice Killeen's findings were. He

said:

"Finally, there is much to be condemned in the secrecy with which the council plotted and carried out their strategies over the period from early 1989 down to

the very closing of the parklands sale in April 1990. They kept the restructuring and implementation committees in the dark at times when it was clear that candour and openness should have been the

order of the day with the other public bodies involved."

So not only did they not conduct their affairs in the open; they actually prevented other public bodies from knowing what they were doing.

There is another example that Justice Killeen talks about. He says:

"I am profoundly disturbed by the cloak of secrecy the board used to hide this transaction from its closing stages and down through the years to 1995 when,

through the press of events and the complaints of a small number of obviously concerned electors and ratepayers, the board was finally forced to acknowledge what had happened."

I was one of those individuals in 1990 who tried to force accountability, and it took seven years. I don't believe the public should be forced to do what I had

to do.

In my bill, each member of the designated public body who knowingly fails to disclose a conflict of interest, as required in

section 11, could be guilty of an

offence and, on conviction, is liable to a fine of about $1,000. Too often conflict of interest is commonplace on boards and commissions, because there is no consequence.

The other point I will highlight again in my bill is that closed meetings must be well justified, the rule being that meetings are open to the public except

under special circumstances. I strongly believe that these bodies that are conducting business, supposedly in the public interest, should be open to the public and decisions made without prejudice.

Public scrutiny is, in my view, what ensures honest, open decision-making.

I hope to receive your support on this bill because we, as legislators, have the tools to make changes for the better, and this bill strives to do so.

I truly believe that institutional arrogance sometimes is what comes into play when decisions are made, and I, as a member of this Legislature, have an

opportunity to bring into action some of those ideals with which I came to this Legislature -- ideals that we are here for the public interest -- and through this type of legislation, improve our

openness and improve democracy. As I've said, I've also spoken to Democracy Watch and they're very much in support of this. They say this is just the type of legislation which helps to bring

transparency and helps to restore public confidence in our public bodies.

Again, I urge all members of this House to vote in favour of this bill, because I believe it is about true accountability. That's what transparency is, and

that's what good ethical conduct is about.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm pleased to be able to rise this morning to speak to Bill 95,

An Act to require open meetings and more

stringent conflict rules for provincial and municipal boards, commissions and other public bodies.

As I've said many times in this House, I've spent a lot of time -- 18 and a half years -- on municipal councils, and the first thing I want to say is that in

all those cases the existing rules were cared for in a very special way. I think that people who are elected to these commissions, particularly municipal councils and school boards, generally take

a great deal of pride in that and follow these rules quite closely. But I do want to say that Bill 95 is

an act concerning open meetings and more stringent conflict rules for provincial and

municipal boards, commissions or other public bodies.

What this bill proposes to do is important in any democratic system of government, and that is why it is already being done in Ontario through existing

legislation. Much of what is in Bill 95 parallels, and at points conflicts with, what's in the Municipal Act in regard to open meetings, and what's in the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act in

regard to conflict of interest.

If those who are responsible for this bill took more time to read the existing legislation on these matters in more detail, they would have clearly seen that

the bill has a number of problems. I want to point out some of those, if I could.

One of the most serious problems I see is that

section 13 of Bill 95 states that when there is a conflict between what's in Bill 95 and what's in existing

legislation, the stricter of the two would prevail. At times it's not going to be a clear-cut case which provision is stricter, and the ultimate decision would likely have to be made through our

court system. We all know that this would use up very valuable court resources and would be very expensive and time-consuming. What the drafters of this bill should have done is amend existing

legislation on this topic, but they didn't, and what you're left with are conflicting rules with vague resolutions on how to overcome the problems.

Let me say a few words on open meetings. I haven't been in a council meeting for three years, and I had forgotten exactly why we would go into committee of the

whole. Of course, today we have labour relations, litigation or potential litigation, employee negotiations and acquisition or de-acquisition of lands. Those are basically the only reasons you can

go into committee of the whole at a municipal council meeting. In my past, I've seen this rule clearly cared for by municipalities and school boards.

Under

section 55 of the Municipal Act, open meeting provisions affect municipal councils, advisory boards and boards found in the Municipal Affairs Act. These

rules do not apply, for instance, to municipal police services boards or school boards. The provisions of Bill 95 would include the boards exempted from the Municipal Act provisions. These boards

are not included in

section 55 of the Municipal Act because they have their own rules regarding open meetings and conflict of interest. There is no need for duplication.

There is a provision in this bill that would fine individual members up to $1,000 for closing a meeting that the bill says should be open. This could lead to

councils opening portions of meetings which should in fact be closed out of fear of being fined. We all know it's necessary to close meetings at times. I've pointed out some of the reasons why, and

I'm sure that most people follow that. This legislation would lead to boards and councils second-guessing their decisions.

As for Bill 95's treatment of conflict of interest, I must first note that the bill duplicates the provisions, and at times even the wording, of the Municipal

Conflict of Interest Act. Secondly, this bill does not define what a conflict of interest is. Exemptions, however, are listed, but they are not as comprehensive as what currently exists.

The bill also sets a $1,000 fine for not declaring a conflict of interest, but no process is established for how an individual is charged, which court they

would try the matter in and how any kind of appeal would work in this case. Existing legislation, on the other hand, is very specific on these matters.

Let me sum up by saying that much of what is in Bill 95 duplicates or conflicts with existing legislation. The existing legislation has clear and definite

rules on open meetings and conflict of interest. If changes are made to legislation concerning these topics, amendments should be made to the Municipal Act and the Municipal Conflict of Interest

Act, not by this piece of proposed legislation.

I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words here this morning.

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): I'd like to congratulate the member from Sarnia for the Ethics and Transparency in Public Matters

Act, 2001.

The member opposite is wrong. This is not duplication of legislation that already exists. This particular legislation is based on the Open Meetings Act in

Michigan. Nothing of the sort exists in Ontario. If it did, a lot of the bizarre decisions that were made would not have taken place, because the public would not have stood for it. So the proof is

in the pudding, and I think the members opposite should take a much closer look at my colleague's bill, because this would truly introduce accountability in the public sector.

The members opposite pride themselves on saying they are for accountability in government. Well, here's an opportunity to prove what they're saying, not only

to talk the talk but to walk the walk.

Let me tell you about some examples in my own community that probably would not have occurred if this particular bill was law, because the public would not

have stood for it. I'm talking about golden handshakes, the amazing and enormous golden handshakes that public CEOs have received across Ontario.

The most recent example is in Ottawa -- $700,000. What planet are we living on? I have to remind the members that hospital boards, school boards and municipal

councils don't have to tell us, the public, what these severance packages are. Most often, reporters or members of Parliament go through the freedom of information act to get this information, at

an expense -- taxpayers' dollars. I can understand if this was PepsiCo or IBM, but it's not. It's municipal boards, hospital boards, school boards that spend our money.

You pride yourselves on saying you are the protectors of taxpayers' money, and yet you don't walk the walk. Here's a good opportunity to do that. Pass this

bill quickly, send it to general government and let's bring some true accountability.

I'll give you some examples from my community alone. I'm not going to blame the individuals here, the CEOs. They were looking out for their best interests, as

is human nature. They were following the rules. No one broke the law here; the law is wrong. There is no law that protects the public against these kinds of decisions.

In my community alone, we had, in the last decade, two hospital CEOs. One severance package, at taxpayers' expense, before it went to litigation -- it was

reduced significantly, with respect to the lawyers -- was for $1.8 million in severance to Dr Jennifer Jackman, back about a decade ago. She didn't receive all of this because it was in litigation.

It was eventually capped at $818,000. This CEO was basically told she needed to leave because of her poor performance and because of a conflict of interest with respect to hiring a personal friend

for a position. And yet there it was.

I have introduced a severance bill twice. Once it passed unanimously, to everyone's credit, but it died because the House was prorogued. I have recently

submitted a much simpler bill that would say, "Make this a sunshine law like your sunshine law." Have severances open to the public, whether it's once a year, the way you do on April 1 for the

$100,000-plus club, or the public can call up and find out: "What is the severance package of this newly appointed executive?" We have a right to know.

Recently, Mr Scott Rowand got a golden handshake. We don't even know how much it was because it went to the courts. Again, everything was legal. No one broke

the law. Mr Rowand, of course, was looking out for his best interests, as is human behaviour. But we, the public, should know how much we paid the man. We don't know; we just don't know.

Then, very recently, our city manager was let go. That severance package was open because of a lot of public pressure. However, as it turns out -- and the

member for Hamilton West is here -- even the council wasn't aware of exactly how much they had OK'd. Let me tell you, I think they would have been a lot more careful about the details of what they

were voting for if they knew the public was in the chambers watching them as they discussed severance packages and salaries. I agree, it makes it a lot more difficult for elected bodies to do that,

but that is what they get paid for. That is what they get elected for: to represent our best interests.

I strongly suggest that the government take a better look at Mrs Di Cocco's bill, because it will truly bring greater accountability to Ontario.

Mr Bob Wood (London West): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: we have with us this morning a distinguished visitor from China, Mr Wang Songda,

deputy leader of the China Zhi Gong Party and a member of the standing committee of the Chinese People's National Congress. He is joined by Mr Kunru Chen, consul for overseas affairs, People's

Republic of China; Mr Ming Li, interpreter from the consulate; and Mr Zhen Gun Li, deputy consul, People's Republic of China.

Please join with me in welcoming Mr Wang and his delegation who are in the east members' gallery.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Welcome. As you know, that is not a legitimate point of order.

Further debate?

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): First, I would like to compliment the member from Sarnia-Lambton on her concern for open meetings. I don't

think there is anybody here in this Legislature who doesn't support that philosophy. Certainly it's very honourable and I compliment her on bringing forward her particular bill.

I served on the Northumberland-Newcastle board of education back in the late 1970s. I also served as reeve and warden in Northumberland county and Cramahe

township. As I served in those various roles, I believed that the rules were quite straightforward and, if they were followed, there was no problem. I think what the member from Sarnia-Lambton is

concerned about is the fact that these rules, these acts, are not being followed. Maybe the penalty needs to be changed so that they would pay more attention to it. That might be a legitimate

concern and something that would turn things around, but to try and change a lot of this, I have some concerns.

From my understanding of the Municipal Act, things allowed in camera are things like discussing issues of personnel. Certainly I don't think that kind of

laundry should be aired in public. If things like salary negotiations are out in public, it certainly limits the ability to negotiate in good faith. Also the buying and selling of property: again,

if that's negotiated publicly, it's certainly not in good faith.

When you look at the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, that all relates to a pecuniary interest. Anyone who might have a pecuniary interest should certainly

step aside not only from the vote or from the discussion but from the meeting, and should leave the hall or the council chamber or the school board meeting room until that issue has been debated

and is completed. I refer to the Municipal Act and the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. Similar rules are in the Education Act.

The member, in her Bill 95, makes reference to "the stricter of the two would prevail." I'm quite concerned about that statement in the act. We end up with

enough issues in our courts today. Our courts are very expensive. It's a win-lose type of situation; it's never a win-win. To end up having this kind of decision being made in the courts -- and I

think it often would -- would be unfortunate. We need bills that are very crisp and clear to reduce the number of times we end up in court.

Bill 95 does not really define conflict of interest, but goes ahead and lists exemptions. These exemptions are less comprehensive than what is in our present

legislation. I think those exemptions need to be very specific, and our present legislation has them outlined there very, very specifically.

As I look over this bill, yes, I have compliments for the member and her concern. I don't think there's anyone who strives for more openness and publicness

than the member from Northumberland, but this particular bill is very complex, very vague. It's lacking in specificity and in true detail and there are a lot of contradictions in this particular

bill, so I think what we presently have is serving the purpose, provided that it is followed.

Possibly, what the member is bringing forward are her concerns and some of the observations she has made whereby these rules, the present legislation, is not

being followed. If it's not being followed, certainly charges can be laid, and that's presently the responsibility of the public. Possibly, more severe penalties should be in place. I think that's

something that would be very worthwhile debating. But the bill that she's brought forward I'm unable to support in its present form.

Mr Speaker, thank you very much. I look forward to seeing where this bill ends up.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): I'm very happy to support this bill brought forward by my colleague from Sarnia. A little bit of history

that the people in Sarnia may know about but others across Ontario won't is that Caroline Di Cocco, the MPP from Sarnia, spent seven years on a particular issue, probably best illustrated by an

editorial cartoon that appeared in their local paper. I just want to describe it to you. It's a cartoon of Erin Brockovich made to look like Caroline Di Cocco outside of a theatre that says,

"Inspired by the movie Erin Brockovich, here in Sarnia-Lambton, MPP Caroline Di Coccovich." So good for you, Caroline. I think everyone ought to know about the hard work and what it means when

Caroline gets her nose on an issue and doesn't let go for seven years.

What started as questions and queries were shut down because the system wasn't transparent enough, but her doggedness resulted in a judicial inquiry that

ultimately proves that funding was misspent in that area. What she's done today, having been elected to the provincial Legislature, is change the system so that the system is more transparent for

all of us.

In my own community of Windsor, if you go down to Elias at Ouellette and Riverside and talk to the people in there and ask them what they're talking about,

right now they want to know about the MFP deal in my community. They want to know about what is probably the largest investigation going on at my city hall with a company called MFP and a series of

financial deals made between the city of Windsor and this company, the same company that Kitchener-Waterloo is now suing for apparently wrongful information in the contract they signed.

People in Windsor want to know, what about the deal? It's currently under investigation and the city has hired a lawyer to look into this matter, but we all

want to know. My big fear is that information will be brought forward to meetings behind closed doors, the numbers of which my city has never seen. In the last year or two or three years we've

never had so many closed-door meetings in my own community as we have now. It's a great concern to find that the scuttlebutt in my community at this time in Windsor -- when we have significant

concerns over a financial deal that we may have struck with a company, we learn that one of our finance officers has been given a severance package and has taken early retirement, and that that

kind of decision making was done behind closed doors. We will likely never know the sum. We won't know what the details of that negotiated package was. I question the timing of agreeing to make

that kind of decision right now when the very thing we're investigation at my city level is the financial dealings with an outside company.

These are the kinds of questions that people on the streets of Windsor and I as a resident of the city -- we have a right to information and I don't want to be

stonewalled. There have been huge expropriation projects going on in my community and the number one question is, how much is the Norwich block costing us in expropriation? There is no one to give

us the answer to that.

This government is famous for saying there's only one taxpayer, and I have great concerns that ultimately the taxpayers will continue to pay. But the taxpayers

should not continue to pay to have information shut out. We should be able to make a phone call and get information. As a taxpayer, as a voter in my community, I have a right to information. Those

who are in positions of authority and are making decisions ought not to be afraid that once the information is public, the people may still rely on them to make good, sound decisions, but it also

obligates them to tell us what they base those decisions on. We should and ought to have access to that information.

I wholly support this bill and hope that it moves forward through the system quickly.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I stand in support of this bill, and I would say to Mr Galt from the Conservative caucus, who spoke

earlier, his own argument as to why he's voting against the bill -- actually, he makes the argument why he should be supporting it and sending it to committee. He said he thinks overall, as did

other government members, that this is an important issue which needs to be dealt with, but they don't like the formation. Mr Galt said it's too vague, and whatever.

But sending it to committee is the perfect answer. That's what you do with bills, particularly private members' bills, where generally we all support the

direction and the thrust of the bill but have some problems with the content or the way it's laid out. Some people might want it tougher, as I do. Some people might want to make it vaguer, although

I wouldn't want to see that. But his argument is a good argument as to why people should support it here today and send it to a committee, so we can fix it. That's what second reading is all about.

If you accept the thrust of the bill, then let's send it to committee and let's make the necessary amendments. That's what we're here to do today. That's what second reading is all about.

So I'd say to members, look, this is one of those issues I think we all should be very concerned about, these days in particular. We've all experienced this

and people out there have experienced this. Journalists have experienced this. It's harder and harder to get information through freedom of information. The government has brought the charges to

get information up to such heights that many people can't afford it.

We've also seen direct government intervention when some of the members have tried to get legitimate information that should be public information from FOI. I

had an experience where I was trying to get some legitimate information on Walkerton. The FOI commissioner said, "No problem." They were getting it ready for us, we paid our big money, it was

coming, and then all of a sudden we heard nothing back. We phoned up and were told that they had been told by the Ministry of the Environment -- from the minister, as I understand it -- not to

release that information because Walkerton was before the inquiry.

We checked with the commissioner, even though we knew this ourselves, because it is a public inquiry, and of course there was no reason whatsoever that any

documents that were before them could not also be seen by the public. It was an excuse and it was direct interference because they didn't want me to have that information. And I've heard of other

circumstances where that happened. So this bill is all the more important under the present climate in which we're operating.

The history of this is actually very interesting. I know the story of Ms Di Cocco and congratulate her on her persistence. She knows first-hand the personal

implications of not being able to get information that should be in the public domain, so I see this bill as a partial answer. I'm sure Ms Di Cocco also wants this to go to committee so we can all

get our ideas before that committee and make amendments that we can then support or not support.

It's the partial answer to the issue of open and accountable government. I imagine it's broadly supported by everybody except maybe some members of some boards

that are brought in under its provisions.

A little bit of history here: the NDP brought in -- and I remember this very well because we worked on it for quite a while -- a Municipal Conflict of Interest

bill, but we never proclaimed it. At that time, there was quite a lot of controversy in the municipal sector and they successfully argued that the conflict provisions in our bill were too tough on

part-time local councillors who had other interests. So at the end of the day, we never proclaimed that bill; it's still sitting on the books.

But I want to tell you why we brought forward that bill. The bill was a response to the development of scandals in York region and the city of York that rocked

the Liberal government in the late 1980s. Many of you will remember this. There were about eight ministers dumped from the Peterson cabinet at one point, and although this was not the official

reason given for most of them, they had accepted money from Patti Starr. Then, at the municipal level, the allegations were very serious indeed and some municipal politicians, one in particular,

were charged. In his case he was jailed on Criminal Code corruption charges. That's even more background as to why this kind of bill is important.

The bill moves in the direction of greater openness and accountability in decisions made by government bodies. It needs some work in certain aspects that I

really hope and think can be worked on in committee. Ensuring that public business does indeed take place in public is extremely important in a democracy, and we're seeing less and less of

that.

The existing Municipal Act provisions should, in my view, be toughened to provide penalties as the bill suggests, and broadened to include provincial boards

and crown corporations. Broadening conflict-of-interest provisions to include provincial boards and crown corporations is appropriate, but the bill stops short of making those provisions as tough

as the Municipal Act provisions. Under the Municipal Act provisions, if you break conflict rules, you lose your seat. Ms Di Cocco's bill stops short of that and imposes a fine. This may require

some toughening up. That would be my view, should it go to committee.

The bill deals with two areas: open meetings and conflict of interest. That's essentially my understanding of the bill before us today. It's very clear. It's

not convoluted. It's not vague. It deals specifically with those two issues. There are already Municipal Act provisions requiring open meetings of municipal councils and their boards. Of course, at

times, municipal councils go in camera to discuss certain issues if they have to do with development, land use, some money issues, personnel issues, but overall the act requires open meetings.

The bill extends the provision to virtually all municipal and provincial bodies, though not to the provincial cabinet. Ontario Power Generation, for example,

would have to let the public into its board meetings, and at a time like this when the whole system is being privatized, it's harder and harder to get information. You used to be able to get

information about spills, problems and accidents at nuclear plants. All kinds of information that was available to the public is no longer available. That is so wrong and this bill could help

address that issue.

The bill lists the exemptions to the open meeting provisions, so she's thought of that. They are similar, but not identical; it's not exactly the same as the

Municipal Act. Discussions about labour negotiations, acquisition of lands, security of property or personnel matters that don't pertain to an employee are no longer automatically exempt, and

that's an important point because right now, and I've seen it myself -- I sat on Toronto city council for a short time in the late 1980s and there are many --

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean) : Don't apologize now.

Ms Churley: I'm certainly not apologizing. I'm proud to have done that. There was the creation of the Energy Efficiency Act which led to the

now famous atmospheric fund. We did a lot: brought in recycling and retrofitting programs, energy efficiency. I did a lot in those couple of years and I'm proud that some of these legacies are

still there at city council

But what I wanted to say was that there were situations where I questioned a couple of times whether some of the meetings we held necessarily had to be held in

a private room without any press or public presence.

For most of these matters, the bill requires a judgment about balancing the public interest in openness with the public interest in keeping the matter private.

That's a key point. That has got to be balanced. I'm afraid that for all kinds of reasons we've seen many examples where the balance is very clearly tipped the wrong way. My understanding is that

this bill is attempting to create a better balance between the private and public interest.

Section 4 of the bill imposes a fine of up to $1,000 on each member of a council or board who was in attendance at a meeting or part of a meeting that

improperly excludes the public. I think that is a very important aspect of the bill. That would make all our boards and councillors think very carefully, under guidelines, about whether or not they

should be holding meetings behind closed doors. Exemptions are made for members who object on the record or who honestly believe the exclusion was within the bounds of the act.

This doesn't seem to cover a member who arrives late to a meeting. That's something we might be able to fix in committee, because all of us from time to time

are late at meetings. It doesn't deal with that, with members who are unaware the board has passed a motion to exclude the public and forget to object. That's the kind of thing we have to look at.

It can and does happen.

Section 5 requires minutes of all council or board meetings to be made available to the public. There are various other sections concerned with making councils

and boards accountable for enforcing the rules. The conflict-of-interest provisions are less stringent than those, as I've said before, under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. Under the act,

to reiterate this, this is something we need to look at strengthening: members can lose their seats if they vote, debate or otherwise try to influence a vote on a matter on which they have a

conflict.

Under

section 12 of the bill, members violating conflict provisions are only subject to a fine of not more than $1,000.

Section 13 does not say that, if any

other act has stricter rules on open meetings or conflict of interest, those stricter rules apply. I'm not quite sure why Ms Di Cocco did not go the whole distance on this.

A

schedule lists the organizations the bill applies to.

In closing, I would say to the members who have some problems with the bill, but generally agree with its thrust, let it go to committee so we can place our

amendments. This is an important bill before us today and I hope all members will support it.

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I am happy to join the debate today on Bill 95, the Ethics and Transparency in Public Matters Act, put

forward by the member for Sarnia-Lambton, the newly named Caroline Di Coccovich.

My colleague the member for Northumberland spoke about the possible effect this bill would have as it applies to agencies and the way in which it would be

applied across the province. I think Dr Galt was quite clear in addressing the principle of the bill and I would like to speak about it in some detail.

There are some 300 agencies in the government of Ontario. Of these, this bill would apply to fewer than 20. I'm sure that the member opposite is aware of this

and that she has a perfectly logical explanation for this. I look forward to her explanation.

However, what concerns me with this limited scope is that it creates a very different standard for some agencies as opposed to others. Now, some agencies have

more restrictions and autonomy from government than others. We all know that. This is not the problem. The problem is that this requirement to make meetings and minutes public would cause some

real, practical problems for some agencies. It would create a huge administrative burden that is inconsistent with the goals and possible achievements of the bill.

In my opinion this stems from the fact there is no definition of "meeting" in the bill. Clearly a gathering of this sort would qualify as a meeting. We are all

gathered in one place with rules, records and procedures. Indeed it is also public. This could sound like I'm splitting hairs, but if you think much beyond this definition, it is not clear.

Would a committee hearing be considered a meeting? In all likelihood it would. Would subcommittees be considered meetings? I'm quite certain they would. What

about a few caucus members discussing something in their office? Is that a meeting? How about casually running into each other in the cafeteria?

I use these examples to show that

definitions are important. That's why we put them at the beginning of the bill. I find the absence of "meeting" in Bill 95

apparent.

Now, assume that we had a working definition of "meeting" and were to go about making it public. There's no mention of the procedure that is required to make

the meeting or its subsequent minutes public. Would they have to be published, and if so, how widely? Or would it be enough for the minutes not to be secret?

The bill also gives no hint as to the difference between public and accessible. Is it enough in this bill to keep the door open or does there need to be public

seating? How much seating should there be?

The bill provides flexibility for each body to establish its own rules but does not say what is acceptable.

The bill seems entirely arbitrary and will only create unequal practices by failing to establish minimum standards or best practices. Of course this is

assuming that the agency is covered by the bill, and most agencies are not. And there's more.

Part of the bill deals with conflict of interest and public declaration. First, this is very odd. Most conflict-of-interest policies deal with the private

disclosure to an internal officer, not a public declaration that draws in third parties. This is an unnecessary intrusion into the third party's privacy, which, by the way, is totally unrelated to

the stated purpose of the bill.

The official opposition is always quick to point out when they see a possible privacy issue in government legislation. I hope that the member opposite will be

so good as to show us evidence of her consultations with the Information and Privacy Commissioner in drafting this bill.

I am glad to see that the member opposite is recognizing the importance of public bodies in conducting their business in an open and accountable manner, and I

fully agree with her on that point. Public affairs should be open and accessible to a broad base of people, encouraging public input and discussion. However, I don't think the member has fully

thought out the possible and potential application of this bill and the implications it will have on public policy.

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): I am pleased to join in this debate in support and affirmation of that outstanding

Erin Brockovich-type member, Caroline Di Cocco from Sarnia-Lambton.

It's been said that good judgment is based on experience and experience invariably on bad judgment. That's code for let's learn from our mistakes and let's put

in place the kinds of mechanisms, particularly at a time when we're concerned about security, that will do what we need to see happen to make our democratic public institutions cleaner and more

secure.

Is this bill perfect? No, it's not perfect. Is the member presenting this bill willing to see its specific provisions forged in the fires of committee debate?

Of course she is. It's been said that none of us is as smart as all of us, although sometimes around this place I wonder. But I would think that if we could get it into committee and have it

discussed there, that would make some real sense.

There's never a wrong time to do the right thing, and in that context I want to say for the record that if it's a choice between a defensive democracy

contrasted to defending small clusters of influentials meeting in smoke-filled backrooms to make decisions in complete isolation from those who are going to be impacted, I would choose democracy

and transparency and ethics every single day of the week.

I speak from some experience, having spent 10 years as a municipal councillor and six as a mayor, frankly often seeking and receiving very good legal advice

when there were doubts. In fact we had a lawyer on our council who -- although it was never, as you know, under the Municipal Act -- in his formal responsibility to give advice was always very

cautious about in camera sessions.

By the way, for those who are viewing, "in camera" has absolutely nothing to do with photography. It has everything to do potentially with secrecy, and there

are some matters where secrecy is appropriate. I would add that under the Municipal Act the disposal of properties would be something that should properly be an in camera item; it currently isn't,

and that's caused some concern.

AMO has written -- and I took their concerns very seriously -- they are concerned about duplication, and members opposite have spoken at some length about

their fear about the potential duplication. That's interesting from a government that's gone from report cards to Bill 46 to add additional public accountability, and now frequent references to a

new Municipal Act and new provisions there. I think we ought to worry less about duplication and what I call "spin from within," and do a little bit more "hopin to be open."

Mrs Bountrogianni: Small-town talk.

Mr McMeekin: Small-town talk, that's right. We understand it back where we come from. Back where we come from, common sense is just that:

common sense.

I'm hoping members opposite will find it possible to support this bill and to get it to committee, recognizing that it's very good but it's not quite perfect,

and that we can work on it. I think there needs to be, for example, a specific complaints mechanism spelled out. I think the member presenting the bill has quite openly acknowledged that. I think

we need to ensure that's there.

I want to just, in the last couple of minutes that I have, talk about a worry that I've had around developments of late. As one who had the privilege of being

the mayor of the only municipality in all of Ontario who actually lowered taxes six years in a row without impacting services --

Interjections.

Mr McMeekin: It's a fine record. And what did you guys do? You put an unelected transition board in place to take the historic independent

nature and culture of my community away from us. That's what you did.

Let me talk about the unelected transition board -- the member from Hamilton West knows this -- that put secret severance provisions in place for the CAO they

hired, and then gloated about how the elected council wouldn't be able to get rid of people because of it. Shame on you.

When we went through a mediation process when the government opposite pretended that the town of Flamborough, the town of Ancaster and the town of Dundas were

going to have the right to determine for themselves their future, when you laid that trip on us and you talked about how important it was to listen to the people, you put this so-called board in

place so we had a mediation process. We worked through that with our staff people, talking about what it would cost for Flamborough, Ancaster and Dundas to go their own separate ways. We came up

with an arrangement. It was going to cost my town about six million bucks, instead of the $44 million that eventually got approved by the transition board. If that recommendation had stuck, I would

have gone back to the office and signed a cheque and turned that money over right away so that my people could have had the right to do that.

But this government didn't do it. They put a transition board in place that met in private, in secret, and decided over lunch that the mediated settlement that

we had worked so hard on would be cast aside.

It's not just amalgamation that transition boards are on; you're doing the same thing to school boards; you're doing the same thing around issues like hospital

restructuring and health restructuring. You're putting a scapegoat body in place that can act in isolation from the people who are impacted. There's no accountability; this bill speaks to that.

That's why I'm supporting it and hoping and praying that people on the other side will support it too.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I join Ms Churley and other New Democrats in expressing our support for this bill. Like a whole lot of other

people here, I was on a small-town city council; other members of caucus have similarly served on city councils or as members of school boards.

Some of the areas the bill addresses that I find particularly welcoming are the re-evaluation of labour negotiations, acquisition of land and security of

property or personnel matters that are no longer the refuge -- because look at what happens. I think all of us who have been on these boards and councils have seen it and were perhaps shocked and

remained shocked during the times we served on those councils, where it became so easy and automatic to identify something within one of those categories, rightly or wrongly, and immediately, of

course, the doors slam shut, the press is escorted out and the public is denied their right to know.

In my view, the issue is all about ensuring that the public knows what's being done with their communities, what's being done with their services, what's being

done with their tax dollars in the forums to which they elect people who should be accountable to them more than just at election time, who should be accountable to them on a daily basis and as a

result of the scrutiny of the public, either directly or by virtue of the press, the media, which means as an imperative that there be access.

I am disappointed significantly in the government backbenchers' almost pettifoggery in their nitpicking about specific areas. Look, at the end of the day, it's

clear that the government doesn't want to support this legislation. It's clear that this government doesn't believe in transparency in government, it doesn't believe in accountability of elected

bodies and it doesn't believe -- we know this from its own conduct -- in the public's right to know what is happening in government. This government uses the public's own tax dollars to the tune of

millions and millions upon millions to spin and feed its propaganda, yet at the same time has made it quite clear that it's going to use its majority to suppress this genuine and good effort to

create more democracy in those very places where more democracy is needed.

So I call upon individual government members: use this private members' hour in an honourable way. Support the bill. Vote for it. Get it into committee. If the

governments want to kill it after that, the government clearly has that power. But get the debate started in a legitimate, open way. If you've got concerns, express them, but express them in

committee. Don't hide behind your majority to suppress democracy here in this chamber.

The Deputy Speaker: Response?

Ms Di Cocco: I heard the debate on all sides of the House. I don't understand why the government members are afraid of a bill that's intended

to bring open government and open the doors to discussions that affect the public on a day-to-day basis. This bill is about opening those doors to the in camera meetings. Now there's no penalty if

a board goes in camera to discuss public business -- a council, a school board, a hospital board. There is no penalty that makes members of that board think twice before they go in camera.

Here we have a whole bill that presents to you as legislators a possibility to improve the way we do public business in this province. There's a lot of

nitpicking, as was said, and you don't give the opportunity to debate the fine-tuning of the bill in committee.

This open government bill is about requiring open meetings and more stringent conflict rules for provincial and municipal boards, commissions and public

bodies. It introduces a fine of up to $1,000 for those found guilty for inappropriately conducting meetings behind closed doors and knowingly failing to reveal conflict of interest. It requires a

set of rules and public notice of those meetings.

I believe it's important that we continue to restore confidence in the public by requiring open meetings.

The Deputy Speaker: This completes the time allocated for debate on ballot item number 24.

SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'EAU POTABLE SAINE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now deal with ballot item number 23. Ms Churley has moved second reading of Bill 3,

An Act

to restore public confidence in the quality of drinking water in Ontario. Shall the motion carry?

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will take the division on this ballot item following disposition of ballot item number 24.

ETHICS AND TRANSPARENCY

IN PUBLIC MATTERS ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'ÉTHIQUE

ET LA TRANSPARENCE DES QUESTIONS

D'INTÉRÊT PUBLIC

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Ms Di Cocco has moved second reading of Bill 95,

An Act to require open meetings and more stringent

conflict rules for provincial and municipal boards, commissions and other public bodies. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will now deal with ballot item number 23, second reading of Bill 3.

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

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'EAU POTABLE SAINE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Members will please take their seats.

Ms Churley has moved second reading of Bill 3. Those in favour will please stand and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Clement, Tony

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

DeFaria, Carl

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hampton, Howard

Hodgson, Chris

Hoy, Pat

Jackson, Cameron

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Marland, Margaret

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Martiniuk, Gerry

Mazzilli, Frank

McMeekin, Ted

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Stockwell, Chris

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wood, Bob

Young, David

The Deputy Speaker: Those opposed will please stand and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Hastings, John

Johnson, Bert

Maves, Bart

Miller, Norm

Stewart, R. Gary

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 63; the nays are 5.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

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

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Mr Speaker, I would ask that Bill 3 go before the general government committee.

The Deputy Speaker: Ms Churley has asked that the bill be referred to the standing committee on general government.

All those in favour of having the bill referred to the standing committee will please rise.

All those opposed will please stand.

The majority is in favour. This bill will be referred to the standing committee on general government.

Before dealing with ballot item number 24, I would ask that the doors be open for 30 seconds.

ETHICS AND TRANSPARENCY

IN PUBLIC MATTERS ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'ÉTHIQUE

ET LA TRANSPARENCE DES QUESTIONS

D'INTÉRÊT PUBLIC

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Ms Di Cocco has moved second reading of Bill 95.

All those in favour will stand and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

DeFaria, Carl

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Gerretsen, John

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Mazzilli, Frank

McMeekin, Ted

Mushinski, Marilyn

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Wood, Bob

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

Nays

Baird, John R.

Clement, Tony

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Johnson, Bert

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Sampson, Rob

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Young, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 45; the nays are 23.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like the bill referred to the public accounts committee.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Sarnia-Lambton has asked that it be referred to the public accounts committee. Agreed?

All in favour will stand and remain standing while they are counted.

All those opposed will please stand.

The majority is in favour. The bill will be referred to the public accounts committee.

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

The House recessed from 1216 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BRUCE FORBES

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): It's with great honour and sadness that I stand here today to remember the life of one of my riding's most beloved

citizens. Bruce Forbes, or RB as he was known to his family and friends, died at the age of 79 in a Hamilton hospital early last Friday after suffering an aneurysm.

Recognized across Canada as Mr Golf, Bruce was elected an honorary life governor of the OGA in 1968 and became executive director of the Royal Canadian Golf

Association in 1970, a position he held until 1978 when he was elected an honorary life governor of the Royal Canadian Golf Association. In 1987 Bruce was elected to the Canadian Golf Hall of Fame,

and to the Ontario Golf Hall of Fame in 2000.

For all members present, you should note that Bruce was the one who secured Jack Nicklaus to design Glen Abbey golf course.

Although he was best known for his contributions to the game of golf, Bruce was a proud Canadian and was deeply involved in the community of Brant. Bruce

joined the army reserve in 1940 and in August of 1942 was sent overseas as a replacement officer for the Dieppe landings.

After being elected to the Brantford Public Utilities Commission in 1960, Bruce also tried his hand at politics at the provincial level by running in 1967 as a

Liberal. Bruce was also a Rotarian in the community, and this week was the first time ever he did not attend a weekly meeting in 55 years.

Bruce is survived by his wife Nancy, sons Jim and Bob and daughter Susan, all of Brantford. He was a wonderful person. He was a classy guy. He was a gentleman

and a citizen and a friend. His legacy will remain for ever and ever. Our prayers to Bruce Forbes and his family.

FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): I need not remind anyone sitting in this Legislature of the horror of the attacks of September 11. Our

television sets constantly flashed images of destruction. Our television sets also showed us the images of hurt and sadness. We felt the pain of the loss of life.

We also recognized the lost lives of the New York fire department. We heard that over 250 firefighters lost their lives that day and we paused to remember

them.

We must also recognize those firefighters who risk their lives each and every day to keep the rest of us safe.

This evening in London the office of the fire marshal of Ontario will recognize certain individuals who have dedicated 20, 25 and 30 years of their lives to

save lives. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and congratulate the London recipients of the fire service's Long Service Medal. They are Captain Frederick Beck, Captain David

Beecroft, Captain Michael Black, Captain Paul Carew, Deputy Chief Robert Hansen, Captain Terrance Harper, Captain Morley Haynes, Captain John Kenney, Captain John Lawrence, Captain William Lawrence

and Captain Kenneth Purdy.

I would also like to recognize five others for 20 years of personnel service in administration: Linda Morton, Deborah McCutcheon, Deborah Fisher-Morin,

Katherine Dunham and Catherine Winter.

To hit a 20- or 30-year milestone in any career is an achievement and I'm happy to recognize the outstanding efforts of these individuals.

EARLY LEARNING STRATEGY

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I rise today to help the people of Ontario understand what many of them shake their heads about, which

is the lack of action by the Minister of Education when it comes to making sure that kids can learn.

An early learning strategy was talked about by the minister earlier this week. I'm sad to report to the people of Ontario that this strategy contained a focus

on 16 schools out of approximately 4,000 in this province. That will reach one half of 1% of the kids in grades 1 to 3, when the tests this government has had for the past three years, and a leaked

document showing that they expect the same this year -- there is no improvement and in fact is not meeting the standard for half of the elementary students in this province.

The government, instead of actually attacking that problem and dealing with it, has 66% of these kids sharing textbooks, 25% fewer special-ed teachers in

substantial to fix it. Instead, we have a token announcement from a token minister not prepared to stand up and fight for the resources and fight for the ability to make sure that kids really do

have a decent chance at learning in the early years.

We have heard nothing but applause from the members in the government caucus that there are children in their ridings that need to be able to learn, that need

to be able to have math, that need the smaller class sizes Dalton McGuinty promised them, that need the extra resources the Liberal Party has said it will provide in smart, intelligent ways. They

have left them alone to the token advertising that costs more than the announcement that was made.

NEWMARKET GIRLS SOFTBALL TEAM

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I rise today to pay tribute to the Newmarket Minor Softball Association, the Mite girls team. The Newmarket

Stingers Bare Naked Ladies/Business Depot Mite Girls rep team is a group of nine- and 10-year-old girls in their first year of playing competitive rep ball. They represent the town of Newmarket and

the Newmarket Minor Softball Association in league play in Newmarket, Whitby, Pickering, Markham and Oak Ridges. As well, they played in several tournaments across the province this summer: Whitby,

Oshawa, Barrie, Mississauga and Chatham.

This group of talented and very fortunate young ladies won a medal in every tournament they attended, collecting one gold, three silver and one bronze. In

addition, in August in Newmarket, the girls came second out of 13 teams to win a silver medal in the Provincial Women's Softball Association Mite tier 2 provincial grand championships, and their

catcher, Kelsey Darcy, was selected as the tournament's most valuable player.

Playing softball at a competitive level may have its rewards in the future for some of these girls. Several players from Newmarket have in the past been

awarded softball scholarships to American universities and colleges. There is also the possibility of making it to the Canadian Olympic softball team.

The most important aspect of playing on a team is all about being a team player, good sportsmanship, dedication and commitment. These lessons will carry them

far in life.

TOM JOY

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): I rise to pay tribute today to a gentlemen who was known, I think, by all members of this House, or

certainly a good number of them: Tom Joy. Tom was the president of Windsor Raceway and a huge philanthropist in our community. He succumbed to cancer this past Tuesday.

He had a remarkable life and career; remarkable is the only way to describe it. He was born in St Catharines. Many great people come from St Catharines; he's

only one of them. He served in the United States military for many years. He developed a business sense, an instinct, that made him millions upon millions of dollars.

Relatively late in life he acquired the Windsor Raceway, and it was because of his vision that that raceway was saved. He truly had a great impact on that

industry and many others.

Mr Joy, you'll be aware, was the first manufacturer of Canadian flags. He set up a company at the request of Mr Pearson after the passage of the Canadian flag

bill in 1964.

Most of all, he was a great philosopher, a friend to our community, a friend to our province who gave back much more than he ever took.

He is survived by his daughter and his beloved grandson. He lost his wife less than a year ago, and in some sense I'm sure he's happy to be with her.

He was a great citizen of this province, a great citizen of this country, and I know all members of the House join me in saluting Tom Joy.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to express our support for

the statement which was just made by Mr Duncan. We fully support every statement he says, and we believe that Tom Joy was a great asset to our province and our country. I thank him for bringing

that statement to the House today.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: New Democrats would be remiss if they did not join with the sentiments

expressed and share in the views expressed by Mr Duncan with respect to Mr Joy. We have certainly joined and we share in what is undoubtedly a sense of loss and grief.

SAFE DRINKING WATER LEGISLATION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): The opposition enjoy very few victories in this Legislature, but we scored this morning, big time. Bill

3, the NDP Safe Drinking Water Act, passed second reading this morning in private members' hour. More importantly, the Tories failed in their attempt to kill it by sending it to the committee of

the whole House like they did the last time. This bill passed second reading. They simply didn't have the numbers. They lost the vote.

However, I want to be gracious in my victory. I want to thank all of the members who supported this bill. I particularly want to thank the Liberal caucus, who

brought in the numbers, in combination with our numbers, to defeat the Tories in their bid to kill the bill.

I want to say, however, that this bill, yes, is a victory --

Interjection.

Ms Churley: No, you just didn't have the numbers -- is a victory for me and my caucus, but it is really a victory for all of Ontario. In

particular, it is a victory for the citizens of Walkerton. This is something that, since the Walkerton tragedy, the citizens' group there has been calling for. This is something that many

environmental groups across the province had been calling for. This is a victory for all of those people who helped me put this bill together, the experts in the field. I want to thank all of them

for their support and the work that they put into this bill, and I look forward to working with all members of the Legislature in passing this bill into law.

PROGRESS CAREER

PLANNING CENTRE

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I want to recognize an organization in my riding that is currently celebrating its fifth

anniversary.

The Progress Career Planning Centre has been providing career counselling services for the past five years to the residents of Scarborough. It's a privately

incorporated non-profit organization that was originated in the fall of 1996 by the Scarborough Board of Education and Centennial College. It's a thriving, creative organization that provides

career development services to a diverse client group. The centre offers career coaching and guidance to motivate clients to see the big picture of their individual career management and personal

goals.

In addition, the centre assists individuals and companies to achieve their human resource potential by helping them make strategically viable short- and

long-term career and employment decisions. Services they provide include individual employment counselling, vocational assessment, academic assessment, career decision-making, employment-related

workshops etc.

In keeping with our philosophy of giving people a hand up rather than a handout, I extend my congratulations to the hard-working, dedicated people of the

Progress Career Planning Centre on their fifth anniversary. They truly ar