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

June 25, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-Jun-25 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 25 June 2001 Lundi 25 juin 2001

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SENIOR CITIZENS

CANADA DAY FESTIVITIES

IN DURHAM

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

PAYUKOTAYNO HEALTH SERVICES LABOUR DISPUTE

GREAT LAKES HERITAGE COAST

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

LANDFILL

NORTHERN CANCER TREATMENT

ROUGE VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM

SPEAKER'S RULING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FOOD SAFETY

AND QUALITY ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA QUALITÉ

ET LA SALUBRITÉ DES ALIMENTS

ONTARIO COLLEGE

OF ART & DESIGN ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'ÉCOLE D'ART

ET DE DESIGN DE L'ONTARIO

RESPECT FOR VICTIMS

OF CRIME ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LE RESPECT

DES VICTIMES D'ACTES CRIMINELS

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

VISITOR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FOOD SAFETY AND QUALITY LEGISLATION

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

FOOD SAFETY AND QUALITY LEGISLATION

SPEAKER'S RULING

STANDING ORDERS

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC HEALTH

GROUNDWATER PROTECTION

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

NORTHERN CANCER TREATMENT

PUBLIC HEALTH

ACADEMIC TESTING

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES

IN EASTERN ONTARIO

VISITOR

YOUNG OFFENDERS

POST-SECONDARY

EDUCATION FUNDING

CEMETERY MAINTENANCE

HAZARDOUS WASTE

PETITIONS

HOME CARE

ELECTRICITY DEREGULATION

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

HOME CARE

ELECTRICITY GENERATING STATION

SAFE STREETS LEGISLATION

HOME CARE

PROTECTION OF MINORS

WATER EXTRACTION

PERSONAL NEEDS ALLOWANCE

VISITORS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'EFFICIENCE

DU GOUVERNEMENT

PUBLIC SERVICE STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT

À LA FONCTION PUBLIQUE

Monday 25 June 2001 Lundi 25 juin 2001

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): The constituents of St Paul's have expressed to me their outrage with the wrongs done to them by the Harris

government. Whether it be home care service, drug coverage or just being treated with dignity and respect, Ontario's seniors deserve better.

One constituent writes me of his 94-year-old aunt who is seeing her three hours of home care a week being reduced to effectively nothing. He writes, "It is not

moral to treat our elderly this way, certainly not when we receive $200 cheques from the government and hear talk of more tax cuts. `Yours to discover' indeed," he writes.

Another senior writes to express outrage over the statements by the Premier with respect to seniors being grateful to be living in the province of Ontario. She

writes, "I'm extremely revolted at [Mike Harris's] attitude. It is unbelievable that the man could be so lacking not only in common sense but compassion and human understanding ... " Seniors, "the

very people who built this city, who are responsible for paying taxes to develop everything that's in the city, now need help" and Mike Harris is "going to cut them off," the constituent

writes.

Another senior writes demanding a public apology from the Premier, and has written the Premier demanding that apology for his statements with respect to

seniors.

We all know that the Harris government did not campaign in 1995 or 1999 on restricting seniors' access to the drug plan. We all know here that it's going to end

up costing more money at the end of the day if we put people off drug therapies and put people in hospitals quicker and sicker.

I'll tell you, the seniors of this province are not going to forget what this government did to them, and I intend to ensure that this government is held to

account for the shabby treatment of seniors in this province.

CANADA DAY FESTIVITIES

IN DURHAM

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'd like to invite the people of Ontario to take

part in one or more of Canada Day festivities taking place in my

riding this Sunday in Durham.

In Orono village, festivities will begin following the traditional cake-cutting ceremony in Orono Park. In addition to the usual fun and games, the Clarington

Concert Band will be performing for a very large crowd, while over in Bowmanville, children and adults alike will be enjoying a celebration at the Bowmanville Museum. In Port Perry there are many

entertaining activities planned for the day, and in the evening in beautiful Palmer Park along the shores of Lake Scugog, following ceremonies by several musical acts in the park and bandshell,

there will be the traditional fireworks display at the end of the evening.

One of Port Perry's residents will be presented this year with Port Perry's Citizen of the Year Award during the festivities. This year's recipient is local

businesswoman and new president of the Scugog Chamber of Commerce Ms JoAnne Cerovich. Ms Cerovich has done much for the community. This is a well-deserved award during this International Year of

the Volunteer.

I want to thank the many people for their volunteerism and hard work with these three events: John Fletcher, Dan Banting, Fred Haines, and of course the staff of

Bowmanville Museum.

Our Canada Day is a day for celebrating with family, friends, and fun. I suggest that everyone take a few minutes this Canada Day to reflect on how fortunate we

are to live in a country that is the envy of the world. To the men and women of the branches of the Royal Canadian Legion and veterans in my riding of Durham in Ontario, thank you for all that

you've done in making Canada a free country that will benefit all of us today.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Since this Parliament assembled, I and my Liberal colleagues have been petitioning the government of

Ontario to provide adequate, fair and reasonable travel grants to northern Ontario residents forced to travel for medical care. I have read petitions carrying thousands upon thousands of signatures

from residents from all over Algoma-Manitoulin, from all over northern Ontario and across all of Ontario asking that this program be improved and be fair.

The travel grant program is about access. It is about ensuring that northern Ontario residents can access health services as equally as southern Ontario

residents. It is about removing a significant barrier to quality health care in northern Ontario.

The program has been grossly unfair when compared to the treatment of southern Ontario patients who have found it necessary to travel to northern Ontario. The

Ombudsman of Ontario has found that the program is clearly discriminatory.

It is now way past time that the Harris government act to remove the increasingly significant distance barrier to northern Ontario working families. It is time

to appropriately compensate northerners for necessary health travel. It is time for Mike Harris to recognize that northerners must receive equality.

Mr Harris, it's time.

PAYUKOTAYNO HEALTH SERVICES LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): You might have heard on CBC Radio and other news outlets over the last week that there has been a strike

at Payukotayno Health Services up in Moosonee, which services all the health care needs across the James Bay coast.

What's particularly notable about this strike is the reaction of the executive director or the board in regard to how they have been dealing with the employees.

We found out this morning that 10 individuals who work for Payukotayno have been fired as a result of what is a labour dispute. I'm calling upon the minister responsible for social services, the

Minister of Health and Minister of Labour to investigate, because from what I'm being told from within the community the issue is not money but actually a conflict that exists between the employees

and the executive director. If this is the case, I'm asking for the ministers to intervene to clear the atmosphere at Payukotayno so that we can get back to what is important, and that is providing

services for the Mushkegowuk people of Timmins-James Bay.

I say again, I ask both the minister responsible for social services and the Minister of Labour, as well as the Minister of Health, to investigate and to see if

indeed the assertions that are being made to me are the fact, that the executive director has somehow gone out of control up in Moose Factory.

GREAT LAKES HERITAGE COAST

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): I rise today to speak about the Great Lakes heritage coast initiative at the Ministry of Natural Resources, a project

I was proud to lead while I was parliamentary assistant there.

An extensive public consultation process was launched in January 2000 in communities located along the heritage coast, from Thunder Bay to Port Severn on

Georgian Bay. I was thoroughly impressed with what I heard. In addition to sustaining the area's scenic natural values and cultural heritage, people recommended exploring economic opportunities in

innovative ways to promote the Great Lakes heritage coast as an international tourist destination while protecting its ecological values. The love local residents share for the uniqueness and

beauty of this area is really extraordinary.

A discussion paper on the findings was launched in August 2000, and I understand a further announcement will be taking placing in the near future. My

recommendations for the future of the Great Lakes heritage coast will be unveiled at that time.

I would like to take this opportunity to personally thank local governments, First Nations, community organizations and residents of this magnificent part of

Ontario for their insight, time and hospitality during the consultative process. The Premier's vision of Ontario's Living Legacy is being realized through this project. We are protecting and

promoting a beautiful part of Ontario for future generations.

My special thanks go to the Minister of Natural Resources for giving me the opportunity to lead the project under his guidance. The benefits of Ontario's Living

Legacy will be realized for all Ontarians.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): My statement today is to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation.

Minister, you may not be aware, but in 1995 Mike Harris committed to passing an Ontarians with Disabilities Act in his first term. I am therefore appalled when I

read your business plan for 2001-02 to find what is not stated in your plan about providing this bill to protect the rights of those with disabilities. This indeed has been a promise made and a

promise broken by this government. The government in fact has refused to support my private member's resolution that would simply require the Premier to meet with Ontarians with disabilities. In

this business plan, there are very vague references to removing the barriers to those with disabilities. This government is erecting more barriers, and erecting them faster than they are removing

them. There is absolutely nothing in here with a fine timeline commitment.

Appallingly, the one concrete proposal made by your ministry is to implement a Web page. For Ontarians with disabilities receiving $930 a month it is ludicrous

to think they can afford the Internet time or indeed afford to purchase a computer for it. They require something concrete. There is no commitment in this plan whatsoever, and it is a disgrace and

a betrayal of one and a half million Ontario citizens.

Minister, I urge you to keep the Premier's promise and implement a meaningful act now.

LANDFILL

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): Last week this House saw the shameful display of the Liberal Leader of the Opposition trying to play politics

with a very serious issue. As usual, though, he still couldn't get it right.

Last summer the Minister of the Environment committed to closing the Keele Valley dump in 2002, and 12 months later the Liberal Party sees the light and tries to

pretend that their bill is adequate. In fact, it might actually be worse than allowing the dump to stay open. Certainly our government's standing commitment is far better than the status quo and

better than Mr McGuinty's passing fancy.

My constituents and the people of Vaughan-King-Aurora have made it perfectly clear to both the late Al Palladini and me that they wanted the dump closed.

The Liberal Party took 16 years to take a position on the Keele Valley dump. Last October, the Liberal position was to not extend the Keele Valley dump. Now, in

the middle of a by-election, they change their position. Our position was, and remains, clear: to close the Keele Valley dump by 2002.

Mr McGuinty's bill, clearly written by the Liberal Vaughan-King-Aurora by-election campaign staff, is worse than inadequate. As the Minister of the Environment

pointed out, it doesn't allow for environmental remediation, for dealing with erosion or for new fences. This bill, like Mr McGuinty, is not up to the job.

NORTHERN CANCER TREATMENT

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Enough is enough. Gerry Lougheed Jr, Ontarians Seeking Equal Cancer Care, in fact all northerners, want the Mike

Harris government to act, and act now.

At a news conference earlier on today, Gerry Lougheed Jr, representing all Ontarians who believe that this government is practising health care apartheid, asked

for three things: (1) he wants northern cancer patients who have been discriminated against to be reimbursed for their costs to fight this dreaded disease; (2) within 15 days he wants Mike Harris

to release the policy document he has in his possession with regard to the travel grant; and (3) within 30 days OSECC, Gerry Lougheed Jr and all Ontarians want the Premier or his health minister to

sit down with OSECC to plan out a strategy which will work for the people of Ontario. In fact, what Gerry Lougheed Jr, Ontarians Seeking Equal Cancer Care and all Ontarians want is that this

government finally right the wrong that has been found to be relevant and prevalent in Ontario.

Discrimination must stop. Health care apartheid must stop. It is time for this government to right the wrong. Enough is enough.

ROUGE VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I once again rise to pay tribute to the nurses, doctors, staff and volunteers of the Rouge Valley Health

System.

In 1995, when our government was first elected, our health care system was deteriorating after 10 years of Liberal and NDP mismanagement. For our predecessors

the solution was to ignore problems, shuffle resources and close 10,000 beds. The Harris government took a different path by increasing funding, providing resources for capital improvements and

bringing services closer to the people who use them.

Last week I was pleased to attend the grand opening of the Transamerica Life Breast Screening and Diagnostic Centre located at the Centenary site of the Rouge

Valley Health System.

The centre is an important tool in helping women of east Toronto and western Durham assure their long-term health. The early detection and treatment of breast

cancer will ensure that more often than not this terrible disease will be beaten. Their goal is a 24-hour turnaround time on the testing of biopsies and an under-two-week turnaround time for the

treatment.

I would like to thank Transamerica Life, who helped make the centre a reality with a very generous donation. While others believe it's fashionable to criticize

private enterprise when they contribute to the community, I would like to thank them for helping bring services closer to the people of Scarborough and west Durham.

Since 1995 I have had the privilege of announcing record funding at that hospital, the expansion of cardiac care services, the addition of a level II pediatric

centre and, most recently, the support for a brand new state-of-the-art MRI. The addition of the Transamerica Life Breast Screening and Diagnostic Centre is another success story for all of the

nurses, doctors, staff and volunteers who work so hard to make the Rouge Valley Health System one of the finest medical facilities in the province.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to give second and third readings to Bill 66, An

Act to amend the Wilfrid Laurier University Act, 1973.

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

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): On Thursday, June 21, the member for Windsor-St Clair rose on a point of privilege concerning the report of the

Environmental Commissioner, tabled on that day, entitled Broken Promises: MNR's Failure to Safeguard Environmental Rights. I have carefully reviewed the Environmental Commissioner's report, the

member's written submission and the comments in this House by Minister of Natural Resources.

The member for Windsor-St Clair alleges that the Environmental Commissioner, as evidenced by what he had to say in his report, has been impeded and obstructed in

the performance of his duties and that this alleged obstruction represents a contempt of the Legislature. The member went further in saying, "When an officer of the Legislature such as the

Environmental Commissioner is obstructed from performing his or her duty, as has been seriously alleged by that commissioner today, it is a serious breach, in our view, of our privileges as members

to have access to his reports, which we, by law, must have access to."

First let me say, having read the commissioner's report, that my view is he in fact does not allege he has been obstructed in performing his duties. The

Environmental Commissioner expresses a very high level of frustration with the fact that the Minister of Natural Resources had not yet "classified its instruments," a term that has a specific

meaning within the Environmental Bill of Rights, but he does not at any point directly or indirectly assert that the ministry has obstructed or attempted to obstruct the performance of his

functions or that the ministry has in way tried to frustrate or hinder the Environmental Commissioner from performing his statutory duty.

While the commissioner reports findings that are critical of the ministry, none of his statements contain or equate to an assertion that the ministry has

obstructed the Environmental Commissioner. Indeed, in making these findings and reporting them to the Legislature, the Environmental Commissioner has specifically fulfilled his role, which the

commissioner indicated himself in the report, and the member for Windsor-St Clair also noted in his submission, is to review how provincial ministries carry out the requirements of the EBR and to

report to the Legislative Assembly.

Again, by my reading of all the material before me, the Environmental Commissioner simply has not made the allegation of obstruction that the member for

Windsor-St Clair asserts. I therefore find that a prima facie case of contempt has not been made out.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FOOD SAFETY

AND QUALITY ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA QUALITÉ

ET LA SALUBRITÉ DES ALIMENTS

Mr Coburn moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 87,

An Act to regulate food quality and safety and to make complementary amendments and repeals to other Acts / Projet de loi 87, Loi visant à

réglementer la qualité et la salubrité des aliments, à apporter des modifications complémentaires à d'autres lois et à en abroger d'autres.

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

The Minister of Agriculture for a short statement?

Hon Brian Coburn (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I'll defer until ministers' statements.

ONTARIO COLLEGE

OF ART & DESIGN ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'ÉCOLE D'ART

ET DE DESIGN DE L'ONTARIO

Mrs Cunningham moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 88,

An Act to revise The Ontario College of Art Act, 1968-69 / Projet de loi 88, Loi révisant la loi intitulée The Ontario College of Art Act,

1968-69.

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

The minister for a short statement?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women's issues): The purpose of this bill is

to offer opportunities for graduates of the Ontario College of Art and Design by allowing the college to grant degrees.

The undergraduate and graduate degree has become the standard academic qualification in professional fine art and design programs. When this legislation is

passed, OCAD students will receive a credential that more accurately reflects the level of education they have received. The degree programs which would be offered by the college have been assessed

by an expert and independent academic panel. They have been found to meet or exceed academic standards for similar programs in Ontario and North America.

The amendments we are bringing forward today will help to bring OCAD and its students the recognition they need to succeed in a competitive world.

RESPECT FOR VICTIMS

OF CRIME ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LE RESPECT

DES VICTIMES D'ACTES CRIMINELS

Mr Bryant moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 89,

An Act to provide for the respectful treatment of victims of crime / Projet de loi 89, Loi prévoyant le traitement respectueux des victimes

d'actes criminels.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): This bill provides for mandatory, enforceable rights for victims. The crown counsel must give victims a

reasonable opportunity to have admissible evidence concerning the impact of a crime presented to the court before sentencing; as well, the provision of information of victims concerning the

structures and operation of the justice system, victims' services, the freedom of information and privacy act, and compensation for victims of crime in this act are to be mandatory. As long as the

provision of specific information doesn't prejudice an investigation, victims must be provided with information concerning an offence, upon request, and victims have the opportunity to apply to the

Office for Victims of Crime for redress of complaints regarding treatment and adherence to victims' rights legislation.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c)(ii), the House shall meet from

6:45 pm to midnight on Monday, June 25, Tuesday, June 26, and Wednesday, June 27, 2001, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1353 to 1358.

The Speaker: Would the members kindly take their seats.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Baird, John R.

Bartolucci, Rick

Beaubien, Marcel

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hoy, Pat

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Kwinter, Monte

Levac, David

Marland, Margaret

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Hampton, Howard

Kormos, Peter

Martel, Shelley

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 69; the nays are 4.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Speaker: I would like to ask for unanimous consent -- I just want the government

House leader to be aware of this -- for the Legislature to sit the first two weeks of July.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I heard some noes, and I think some of them were from the table, actually. Just kidding. I did hear

some noes, but they were members.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Before we continue, I am pleased to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have with us today in

the Speaker's gallery His Excellency Quang Thanh Trinh, ambassador of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to Canada. Please join in welcoming our special guest.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FOOD SAFETY AND QUALITY LEGISLATION

Hon Brian Coburn (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): A few moments ago I introduced for first reading the proposed food safety

and quality legislation.

Development of this proposed legislation has truly been a team effort. In addition to my ministry's lead role, both the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care

and the Ministry of Natural Resources have played an integral

part in its development. We are all proud of this bill that would help to ensure that the people of Ontario continue to enjoy a safe

food supply based on an economically viable agri-food industry.

Early in 1999, we identified a need to modernize our food safety system and established the Ontario food safety system review. Our food was, and continues to

be, safe. In fact, Ontario has an enviable food safety record. But over the years our eating habits have changed, different types of food are available and more widely distributed and there are new

food hazards. Governments around the world have been taking a critical look at how both the public and private sectors can ensure the continued safety of the food supply. Our food safety system

review showed us that to do this in Ontario, we need to take advantage of new science and technology and modernize our food safety systems.

Food is essential to sustain life, and while safe food is no guarantee of good health, consuming food that is unsafe will result in undesirable effects that

may range from short-term discomfort to chronic health problems.

Avoiding unnecessary costs incurred as a result of food-borne illness is one way of ensuring continued economic prosperity and enhanced public health in

Ontario.

Everyone along the food system continuum has a role to play in food safety: producers, processors and even consumers. At the farm level, sustainable production

practices are needed to ensure safe food. Moving along that continuum, food processors must engage in practices designed to minimize food safety risks. As the last link in the chain, consumers have

an obligation to prepare, handle and serve food safely.

The proposed Food Safety and Quality Act will help Ontario achieve these goals.

The introduction of this legislation is just one part of the food safety system review. We have already established several new programs that have improved the

safety of Ontario's food supply.

For example, in 1999 we took advantage of new technology and began using a computerized information system for our meat and livestock inspection areas. This

state-of-the-art system has allowed for massive amounts of data from audits, lab testing and inspection reports to be more readily accessible for risk management purposes.

On the horticultural side, last year we conducted a province-wide survey of apple juice and cider producers. As a result of that survey, microbiological

testing and educational programs are now in place, and standards for apple juice and cider are being developed in consultation with the industry to further ensure the safety and quality of these

products.

In 1999, we established the healthy futures for Ontario agriculture program. Among other things, this successful program provides funding for the agri-food

industry to enhance the safety and quality of Ontario food products. As part of healthy futures, funding and access to technical expertise are available to help our agri-food sector maintain and

expand its capacity to meet domestic and export market demands with regard to food safety and quality.

We are also an active participant in the Canadian Partnership for Consumer Food Safety Education, working diligently to educate consumers about their role in

food safety. The proposed Food Safety and Quality Act provides the legislative backbone for a science- and risk-based food safety system. New science and technology have provided us with effective

means of proactively identifying food safety risks along the food chain. By having the ability to identify hazards quickly, appropriate measures can be applied to minimize them before they pose a

risk to public health.

We can improve the safety of our food by identifying potential hazards and minimizing the risks. If passed, this legislation would allow us to use this new

information to better respond to food safety threats. At the same time that we are putting in place a more effective, world-class food safety and quality system, we are also simplifying and

clarifying government legislation surrounding all or part of six current food-related statutes: the Dead Animal Disposal Act, the Edible Oil Products Act, the Farm Products Grades and Sales Act,

the Livestock and Livestock Products Act, the Meat Inspection Act, and the Fish Inspection Act. By bringing the food safety and quality requirements of these acts together under one umbrella, the

consolidated act would establish a common approach and consistent standards for the safety and quality of our food.

At the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, it is our responsibility to work with the agri-food industry to enhance its ability to produce safe

food. We must also ensure consumer confidence in the food safety systems. To this end, as I had indicated earlier, we have worked closely with the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care during the

development of this bill, and they will maintain the highest authority on public health issues. The proposed act requires that all food safety risks be reported to a medical officer of health. Our

partnerships with the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and the Ministry of Natural Resources establish important built-in checks and balances for Ontario's food safety system.

The bill I have introduced today would modernize and strengthen the framework of this system and the food safety expertise and inspection and enforcement

activities of each ministry, and provide an efficient and effective means of delivering programs to ensure public food safety.

This bill was developed after extensive consultation with our stakeholders, including commodity groups, food processors, general farm organizations, public

health workers, government ministries, and consumer education representatives.

During the consultations it was apparent that there was widespread agreement that the proposed act would provide the basis for improved food safety, increased

food safety assurance and a higher level of consumer confidence.

Stakeholders told us that the act and its regulations should be scientifically based. Science is developing in leaps and bounds, and we agree we need to use

new information and technologies available to us to increase the safety of our food supply. Modern, science-based food safety requirements can have economic benefits for producers, such as reduced

farm inputs, increased production and expanded market access.

Stakeholders told us that the proposed act should be flexible and transparent. The broad nature of the legislation allows for maximum flexibility while

regulations are developed, and provides for improved information sharing and updated inspection and investigation methods. We heard that the act should support industry food safety programs and

should harmonize with national and international standards. We are committed to this, not only to ensure safe food for the people of Ontario but also to open new markets for Ontario producers and

processors.

A consolidated modern food safety act would support the overall competitiveness of Ontario's agri-food industry and would allow it to maintain an increased

market share both domestically and internationally. Under the proposed act, the food safety and quality requirements of the current six food-related acts would be modified to include standards and

requirements that will minimize public health risks from food-borne hazards; quality standards to promote the marketing of Ontario products; appropriate enforcement actions to ensure compliance;

and a new authority to ensure a timely and effective response to a food safety crisis, including the ability to trace back to find the source of a contaminated food and to trace forward to

determine where it has been distributed.

If the Food Safety and Quality Act passed, it would provide the people of Ontario with an all-encompassing framework. Once created, we can, in consultation

with our stakeholders, develop the framework that provides clear, strong, science-based regulations that will ensure the people of Ontario continue to have a safe food supply.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Responses?

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): To the Minister of Agriculture today, congratulations on introducing a second piece of legislation

which for the most

part is very much an empty-shell piece of legislation. What we've seen previously with the nutrient management legislation and what we saw today is legislation put in place with

the most important aspect of that legislation lacking: the regulations. I can put the minister on notice right now, and all government members, that we'll be monitoring closely the consultations

that take place this summer and we will be following your consultation tour around.

Minister, it's very interesting to hear you talk about working with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Natural Resources, but there's one ministry you

failed to mention, and that's the Ministry of the Environment. Even in this piece of legislation here today, when you start looking under

definitions and it starts talking about manure and other

biosolids being used as agricultural inputs, those are issues that need to be dealt with in conjunction with the Ministry of the Environment. There is a failure of any mention of the Ministry of

the Environment here.

Both pieces of legislation, this and the nutrient management legislation, we know are of utmost importance to the well-being of the health and safety of all

Ontario's citizens. Both pieces of legislation are extremely crucial to the economic viability of the agricultural industry in this province. But again we're lacking many details: details to come

in regulations.

It's important to go on the record to say that, very strangely, this legislation that we've heard talked about for a long period of time has suddenly and

miraculously appeared, just as the government is about to appear before the Walkerton hearings to become and remain accountable for what they've done to hurt the industry in this province.

It's one thing to have the legislation in place, but again, much like the nutrient management legislation that we saw previously, there's no financial

commitment in here. We've witnessed with this government in the area of investigations alone that up until last fall there had only been four investigators in the whole of the province. It wasn't

until the media started to raise the issue of illegal abattoirs in the fall of 2000 that another investigator was added.

It's interesting too that when you look at the number of inspectors, in 1993 there were 130 inspectors inspecting the meat industry in this province. There

were 50 less in the year 2000; we're down to 80 inspectors. You're talking about the importance of food safety and what you want to do, but you're not backing it up with the resources that are

sorely needed. When you look at the resources and at how the budget in this area has fallen since the election of the Mike Harris government, this government that promised no cuts to agriculture,

we've seen the budget fall in this area of food inspection and food safety from $12.5 million to $7 million.

They talk about how they're going to step up enforcement. Between 1996 and the year 2000, do you know what the Harris government's record was in the area of

convictions? Eighteen convictions in a period of four years. It's very clear that this ministry, which was promised there would be no cuts to agriculture, has seen unprecedented and drastic cuts

implemented and inflicted on it. Now what we're seeing is the ministry having to do damage control to fix all the mistakes that were caused by Mr Harris and his members, who said, "No cuts to

agriculture." I think that's a real disgrace. We know the public is concerned about this issue, but this government seems to ride with the wave of whatever the media is saying. It wasn't until the

media and their exposés in the meat industry that we saw any concrete action from this government.

Let's deal with the animal health lab at the University of Guelph. The animal health lab has seen its ability to maintain antibiotic resistance drop. It has

seen its ability to conduct surveillance on emerging animal diseases drop. More and more we've seen reliance on stakeholders and the private sector. Even today the minister talked about the private

sector. These are important to all the people of Ontario and shouldn't be left to the private sector to deal with.

I want to make a comment on behalf of John Cleary, the critic responsible for dealing with the dead stock issue. My colleague Mr Cleary has raised this issue

numerous times in this Legislature and this government has totally disregarded the warnings Mr Cleary put forward. I want to compliment Mr Cleary on his efforts.

Minister, we look forward to the consultations. We will be there, we will be following and we will be watching.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise in regard to standing order 35(c). The statement delivered

to me, to which I was to respond today, was substantially different from that delivered by the minister. It made it extremely difficult to respond when I started to hear other statements being made

that I wasn't privy to prior to the minister rising in the House.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Excuse me while I consult with the Clerk.

I thank the member for his comments. Standing order 35(

c) says, "Two copies of each ministerial statement shall be delivered to the leaders of recognized

opposition parties, or their representatives, at or before the time the statement is made in the House." Apparently this has come up with Speakers before. I believe in 1992 Speaker Warner ruled

that it is not the Speaker's duty to decide what will be in the statement. Having said that, I would think that in most cases ministers should give a speech to an opposition member.

There may be some occasions when something comes up late, as it often will, that could be added. In the future, if something like that does occur, possibly

what the minister could do is just mention there has been a little bit of a change, because I suspect the statements may change up until the time they are read. In the spirit of co-operation, I

would ask all members to try to the best of their ability to get this speech so all members could follow along.

Having said that, I do understand that on some occasions it will arise that that can't be done. To make it fair for everybody, if the minister could just

indicate that, that would help the critics in their responsibilities. I thank the member for his point of order.

Just before we begin question period, the member for Scarborough East, Mr Gilchrist, has provided --

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Speaker, I believe I have a response as well.

The Speaker: I'm sorry; I apologize. Leader of the third party.

FOOD SAFETY AND QUALITY LEGISLATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Speaker, it's quite interesting to see, once again, the government introduce legislation that is

frankly necessary to address something this government has created.

This is the government that in its first few months as a government said, "You know, we really don't need those people out there inspecting any longer," and so

you laid off a number of the inspectors who were supposed to be inspecting provincially regulated abattoirs. I remember the then Minister of Agriculture saying, "We don't need these food

inspectors." Then the next step, after you laid off a large number of inspectors, was that you took a number of other inspection positions and simply contracted them to outside organizations with

absolutely nothing in place to ensure that food standards were going to be met, nothing in place to ensure they were going to meet certain standards.

That's the scenario this government created. Added to that scenario is the fact that you reduced the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs by $200

million a year on an operating basis. That's $200 million a year that used to be available to ensure proper food inspection actually happened. But you did away with that. That was unnecessary.

Protecting our food and ensuring that food safety standards were met wasn't important. What was important was that you find the money to finance tax cuts for

your well-off friends. We've seen from Walkerton what happens when you ignore basic issues like the safety and reliability of our drinking water, the safety and reliability of the food we eat.

We've learned through hard lessons what happens when your priority is to give tax cuts to your well-off friends at the expense of safe drinking water and safe food for the population of

Ontario.

The government now understands there is a problem -- a problem they've created. So they bring in this legislation. But I want people to read the fine print. In

the statement that was given today, and in the legislation, nowhere are there provisions that are going to require that the ministry of agriculture and food once again have the expertise and the

people in the field to do these food inspections.

This is a bit like Ronald Reagan. When environmental disasters started to happen in the United States, Ronald Reagan would pass legislation but then ensure

there was nothing in place to enforce the legislation. That's what we have here. The government finally acknowledges there's a big problem, a serious problem with respect to food safety, and so

they're going to bring in this legislation. They make a big deal of announcing it. They spin out about a seven-page document in terms of media spin. But when you read the fine print, there is no

money to do the inspecting, no money to hire the inspecting expertise, no money for the operational administration that would have to happen to support this.

So I say to people across Ontario: as the result of this legislation alone, can you have any greater assurance that food is safe? No, because there's no

provision for inspection. Can you have any assurance that those provincially licensed abattoirs are in fact going to be inspected? No, because there's no provision to put the inspectors in

place.

I'm sad to say this, but I think what we have here is another exercise in media spin. Make an announcement, hope that the public thinks the problem has gone

away, hope that the media will give you a headline or two, and then hunker down and hope that nothing happens.

That won't do. This government is taking risks with food safety across this province. You've been taking risks with food safety for five years now. If you're

really serious about this, stand in your place today, Minister, and tell us that the inspectors who were laid off, the inspections that were contracted out to outside agencies, will be there again,

will be adequately funded, that you'll have the expertise to do the food safety inspections that need to happen.

If you can't give people that assurance -- no, that guarantee -- today, then this is nothing more than media spin, and it doesn't deal with the real

problem.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member for Scarborough East, Mr Gilchrist, has provided me with a written notice of a point of privilege, as

required by standing order 21(c). I would like to thank the member for giving me sufficient time to review the matter, and I wish to advise that I will be dealing with this matter directly without

hearing further from the member, as standing order 21(

d) permits me to do.

The member's point of privilege concerns a press release issued by the member for St Paul's, which advises of his intention to introduce a bill. The member for

Scarborough East takes issue with the language of the press release, asserting, "Not only does it imply that he has already introduced this bill, it also implies that the bill is law and binding on

the government."

I'm sure the member will appreciate that the Speaker is not in a position to require compliance by all members to any sort of format on press releases. On a

specific point alleging that the press release prejudiced the course of debate in this Legislature, my reading of it leads me to a view that it is in fact substantially prospective in nature and is

not offensive on that ground.

I do not find that the press release tramples upon the rights of the members enjoyed in this chamber, and therefore a prima facie case of privilege has not

been made out. I thank the member.

STANDING ORDERS

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): On a point of order, Speaker: It's unfortunate that I have to rise on a point of order in regard to

section

97 of our standing orders.

I would say to you that

section 97 deals with written questions, and in

section (

a) it says, "Questions seeking information from the ministry relating to the

public affairs of the province may be placed ... on the Orders and Notices paper."

I have placed nine such questions on the Orders and Notices paper; in fact, these particular questions were placed April 24. Now our standing orders are very

clear, Speaker. They say in 97(d), "The minister shall," and it is not the minister's ability, whether or not he or she wishes, to answer; it says, "shall answer such written questions within 24

sitting days."

It has been well beyond 24 sitting days and, Speaker, as you would know, I placed these selfsame questions on the order paper back in December of last year. Of

course, the House was prorogued by the Premier and so this is a new Parliament. It has been well past the 24-day period.

The standing orders go on, "unless he or she" -- the minister -- "indicates that more time is required because the answer will be costly or time-consuming or

that he or she declines to answer, in which case a notation shall be made on the Orders and Notices paper following the question indicating that the minister has made an interim answer, the

approximate date that the information will be available, or that the minister has declined to answer, as the case may be."

Very interesting, Speaker. When you read the Orders and Notices paper, there is no answer. There is nothing from this particular minister, from this

government, about legitimate questions that have been placed for that ministry, for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

I want to reference

section 1 of our standing orders.

Section 1 is the conduct of business.

Section 1(b)(iii) says, "to hold the government accountable for its

policies." That is the first

section of these standing orders, where we are discharged to hold the government accountable.

Our standing orders are very specific. They say that the minister shall make a reply, and you in your capacity, Speaker, are charged with the duty to enforce

our standing orders. There is no latitude given for ministers to simply ignore the standing orders of this House. I would suggest that this constitutes a contempt of our standing orders and a

contempt of our House.

Interjection.

Mr Caplan: I hear a member from across the way say, "We should change the wording of the standing orders." That's happened twice. This

particular government, as governments before them, did in fact change the standing orders. This

section --

section 97 -- was specifically changed and it was put in this form and now it is

reprehensible, in my opinion, for the minister to ignore this. So, Speaker, I ask you for a ruling on this matter. I ask you to enforce the standing orders of this House.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the member for his very valid point of order. All ministries will know that the standing orders are very

clear, and I would ask in this case I believe the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who is here today, and I'm sure he will take note. There is in fact a standing order which says that

they will be replied to, and I'm sure the minister who is sitting here today will hear your very valid point of order and, hopefully, the answers will be forthcoming.

I say to all ministries that it is very clear that the standing orders do have this procedure in place for the members to ask those questions and, when they

aren't complied with, the ministries are not complying with the standing order.

I thank the member for his valid point of order and I'm hopeful that the minister will take his words here today and get a reply back to the member. I thank

him very much for his participation here today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC HEALTH

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Health. I have a copy in my hand here of a story which is

just fresh off the wire. It's less than an hour old and it describes in some detail some of the testimony delivered today by Dr Richard Schabas, the former chief medical officer of health for

Ontario. In this testimony he describes a particular meeting he had when he attended the policy and priorities committee, cabinet's most powerful committee, chaired by the Premier.

He describes how he was there to issue a warning about some of the problems connected with downloading public health on to municipalities. He describes the

result of this meeting. He says a deputy minister approached him, tapped him on the shoulder and said, "The Premier doesn't want you here for this discussion." He said he told Harris directly

across the table that these were important issues and that it was important that the viewpoint of public health be heard. "The Premier looked at me ... and then he turned away," Schabas said. "As

far as I was concerned, the Premier was turning his back on public health."

Mr Minister, why is it that the Premier and your government have turned their backs on public health?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'll refer the questions to the Minister of the Environment.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of the Environment): As the Leader of the Opposition knows full well, there is ongoing testimony being provided

at the Walkerton inquiry. Obviously, at the end of that time period there will be recommendations and we look forward to dealing with any of those recommendations at that time.

Mr McGuinty: The Minister of Health could have delivered the same response. I don't understand why he referred it to you but I'll go on with

this very interesting, disturbing and troublesome article.

Dr Schabas said that seven of Ontario's 37 health units are in violation of the law today because they only have a part-time medical officer, a situation he

called "unprecedented." One of those is in Huron county, adjacent to Bruce county, of which Walkerton is the capital. Bruce does have a full-time officer, Dr Murray McQuigge, who issued a

boil-water advisory in May 2000 at the height of the E coli crisis. But Dr Schabas then adds, "I shudder to think what would have happened if such an outbreak had happened in Huron county," where

they only have a part-time medical officer of health, contrary to the law, according to Dr Schabas.

So I come back to the same question that I asked earlier and I ask it on behalf of Dr Schabas: why is it that you're turning your back on public health

concerns in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Again I would hasten to remind the Leader of the Opposition that Justice O'Connor has undertaken, and is undertaking, a very

comprehensive review of the situation that happened in Walkerton. I think it's very important that we not prejudge that investigation or the recommendations coming out of the inquiry.

Mr McGuinty: I'll go on with the article, Madam Minister. It says, "Schabas also criticized the Tories' decision in mid-1996 to shut down the

public laboratories that tested municipal drinking water, especially the haste with which that was done.

"He testified how he took the extraordinary step of getting [Minister] Wilson to ask his counterpart in the environment ministry about the lack of mandatory

reporting of bad water."

He goes on to say, "The Tories always appeared to be driven by budgetary concerns rather than what was best for public health.... My voice was not being

heard."

I think it has become painfully and perfectly clear: your government has refused to listen. This man was actually thrown out of the P and P committee room.

This was a man who was charged with a very heavy responsibility to look out for the public health of all Ontarians. I ask you again, why did you turn your back on this man and his good counsel when

it came to protecting the lives of Ontarians?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Again I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that we not prejudge the outcome of the investigation that has been

undertaken by Justice O'Connor. Like the member opposite, we look forward to the recommendations and in the meantime, as he knows full well, there will be further testimony this week.

GROUNDWATER PROTECTION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Roughly one third of Ontarians rely on

groundwater for their drinking water. Your job is to protect their drinking water. You haven't been doing your job and neither have your predecessors for some six years now. Stories about

contaminated well water have become commonplace here in Ontario.

Here's the latest disturbing information. We've received a confidential memorandum and it tells us that of the 554 wells located on land the government of

Ontario owns -- these are lands you lease out -- 267 of those are contaminated and drinking water from those government-owned wells would make the farmers and their families who are leasing these

lands sick. My question to you, Madam Minister, is this: if you can't provide safe drinking water for people who rent from you, how can we trust you to protect drinking water for the rest of

Ontarians?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of the Environment): As the leader knows full well, this government has introduced some very stringent new

drinking water regulations and certainly there is now a standard indicating that there is a need for minimum treatment, sampling and reporting, and analysis, and also that any adverse results need

to be shared with the local medical officer of health, the Ministry of the Environment and the owner.

Mr McGuinty: Madam Minister, it will probably be worth our while to review the record on this score. The Provincial Auditor and the

Environmental Commissioner both warned you, or your predecessor, in 1996 and said, "We need a groundwater protection strategy for the province of Ontario." In 1998 the auditor told us you still

hadn't done anything on that front. You've now been in government for six years. Ontario is still without a groundwater protection plan. One year after Walkerton, one year after seven died and

2,000 became sick, we learn that out of your own 554 wells, 267 will make people sick, if not worse. Madam Minister, have you learned nothing? Why should we trust you when it comes to the

protection of our groundwater if for six long years you have yet to put in place a groundwater protection plan?

Hon Mrs Witmer: We recognize that groundwater is a very important resource for people in this province. As the member opposite knows full

well, we have initiated a partnership-based program to monitor groundwater resources in Ontario. We have committed $6 million to establish a provincial groundwater monitoring network and we will be

monitoring wells. However, what the Leader of the Opposition maybe doesn't want to acknowledge is the fact that we are re-establishing a program that was phased out by the Liberals between 1985 and

Mr McGuinty: You've had six long years to take responsibility and put in place a groundwater protection plan, and you have done nothing.

You've been warned by the Provincial Auditor, you've been warned by the Environmental Commissioner, and you've been warned by us on this side of the House.

Today, one year after Walkerton, we learn that your government is the proud owner of 267 contaminated wells. Over 200 farmers are farming on those lands. Those

farmers have families, Madam Minister, and it might just be that accidentally a child might just drink some of that water. You've had six years to put in place in Ontario a groundwater protection

strategy. Why is it that over the course of those six years, not only have you done nothing about groundwater at large, but when it comes to lands owned by the government of Ontario, there are 267

wells of which you are the proud owner and which are today contaminated?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The information is not correct. Our government has committed $6 million to establish a provincial groundwater monitoring

network, and I would just like to remind the Leader of the Opposition that it was his government that phased out the program. That program was not re-established by the Liberals nor was it

re-established by the NDP.

In the meantime, we are continuing to work with the conservation authorities and we are continuing to work with the municipalities in order to ensure

groundwater sustainability.

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the acting Premier, and it concerns the testimony of Ontario's former chief medical

officer of health. Today at the Walkerton inquiry, when he was asked, he admitted that he, as the chief medical officer of health, wasn't even consulted when your government made the decision to

get out of the work of testing Ontario's drinking water.

We know that you consulted the Red Tape Commission. They had a direct pipeline to the Premier's office. But the chief medical officer of health, the person who

is charged with ensuring that our public health system protects people's health and safety, wasn't even consulted.

Can you tell us why, when something as important as Ontario's drinking water was at stake, you wouldn't even consult, you wouldn't even talk to the chief

medical officer of health?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): The Minister of the Environment will respond.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of the Environment): In response to the question that has just been placed by the leader of the third party, I

just remind the leader that the commission, of course, is continuing to look at all of the information that is being presented to the inquiry, and it would be inappropriate for us today to prejudge

the conclusion or any of those recommendations.

Mr Hampton: I'm not asking anyone to prejudge the conclusion; I'm asking a government that boasts all the time about accountability, what's

your accountability for not even consulting the chief medical officer of health? What's your accountability when you get out of the work of protecting Ontario's drinking water and you don't even

ask the chief medical officer of health, "Is this a good idea? Might we be putting people's health at risk?" You're not prejudging the inquiry by answering that question. You're trying to cover up

your own lack of accountability and your own lack of responsibility.

So tell us, why would a government, a government anywhere, put at risk the public's drinking water supply and not even ask the medical officer of health, "Is

this a good idea?"

Hon Mrs Witmer: There is a tremendous amount of information that has been provided in the course of the past few months. I think it's

extremely important that we allow the inquiry to continue to do the work that it is doing, to continue with its investigation of the events. Certainly we all look forward to receiving the

recommendations.

Mr Hampton: Dr Schabas said something else that's quite interesting. He confessed that right now across this province there are no fewer than

seven public health districts that don't have a local medical officer of health. You know who that would be, don't you, Minister? That would be the person who would have to order that the water be

boiled. It would be the local medical officer of health who would be in charge of talking to the municipality and all other local officials and saying to them, "We've got a water problem, and this

is what you must do about it."

After Walkerton has happened, after seven people were killed and over 2,000 were rendered seriously ill by this kind of water problem, can you explain to the

people of Ontario why there are still seven health districts that don't have a medical officer of health who could blow the whistle on dirty water there, as it was blown at Walkerton, but

unfortunately too late? Tell us why the seven districts still do not have a medical officer of health, despite the fact that the law says they must have a medical officer of health.

Hon Mrs Witmer: The testimony today is part of the comprehensive review that has been undertaken. Again, I would hasten to add that it is very

important that we not prejudge the investigation that is taking place or the work or the questions that are being asked by the inquiry. Certainly, we all look forward to receiving the

recommendations in order to ensure we would never again have a situation such as Walkerton.

NORTHERN CANCER TREATMENT

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Health. Two weeks ago Ontario's Ombudsman, Clare Lewis, found that

your ministry was discriminating against cancer patients from northern Ontario. He very specifically made the recommendation that equal funding be provided to breast and prostate cancer patients

who have to travel for radiation treatment. He said that what was happening under your government was "improperly discriminatory."

Today, a woman from my constituency, Anna Watson, came here to Queen's Park for the second time in a year to plead for equal treatment for cancer patients no

matter what part of Ontario they come from. She knows about this at first hand. She had to spend $2,500 out of her own pocket just to get to the cancer treatment.

The question is simple: will you now guarantee the people of this province that you will accept the recommendation of the Ombudsman of Ontario and provide

equal treatment for those cancer patients who have to travel in order to access cancer treatment?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): We are in receipt of the Ombudsman's report, as is the honourable member. The

Ombudsman's report makes certain conclusions and certainly has a series of recommendations. We are apprised of that and we are taking it under advisement. I can tell the honourable member that we

want to create a travel grant policy for all of Ontario that is fair to northern Ontario and southern Ontario and fair for cancer sufferers and for other sufferers of terrible diseases. We are

apprised of this, and we are working our way through the best way to respond to this and other requests.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary?

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Minister, the Ombudsman found that your government discriminated against northern cancer patients, and you

have an obligation to provide a remedy. I asked the Ombudsman in the Legislative Assembly committee last Thursday why he didn't recommend retroactive payments for northern cancer patients. He said

the following:

"I was very, very concerned about the time it was taking for me to get a response by the ministry on this case.... I thought it would give the ministry a

reason to take longer to answer me and I thought if I waited, it would be too late and I wouldn't be here, because I have not felt that this matter has moved expeditiously.... I felt that it

wouldn't take too much to snooker my getting to this stage and I didn't want to be snookered."

The Ombudsman makes it clear that your government has done everything possible to continue its discrimination against northern cancer patients. Minister, the

time for review, the time for delay, the time for stalling is over. Enough is enough. Will you today agree that your government will retroactively reimburse northern cancer patients for 100% of

their costs for food, travel and accommodations too?

Hon Mr Clement: In fact, we are reviewing every aspect of the Ombudsman's report. I think the honourable member would be the first one

standing up and criticizing us if we acted in so much haste that we tried to preclude the Ombudsman's report.

We are in receipt of it now and it does have a number of serious recommendations. We on this side of the House are interested in fairness, we're interested in

a policy that works for all areas of Ontario, all citizens of Ontario, and indeed deals not only with cancer sufferers but also sufferers of other diseases. That's the spirit in which we are

tackling this thorny problem, which quite frankly precedes this government.

PUBLIC HEALTH

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): This question is for the Minister of Health. Now that you have learned today that seven of

Ontario's 37 health units are in violation of the law because they only have a part-time medical officer, something that Dr Schabas has called "unprecedented," what I'm wondering is whether or not

your government will once again ignore his warnings. He has told us in the past, "As far as I was concerned, the Premier was turning his back on public health." He said earlier today, "This was a

government that really held public institutions in contempt. It was contemptuous of the people who worked in public institutions."

Minister, we now understand that seven of Ontario's 37 health units are in violation of the law. You have that information. Will you ignore Dr Schabas's

warning or will you act on it and fix that today?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Let me assure this House and the honourable member that we take public health

extremely seriously on this side of the House. We have certainly increased our flow of dollars for preventive medicine that has been roundly endorsed by public health officials. Our flu

immunization policy, which is unprecedented in North America, is a shining example of preventive medicine. We in fact have a very forward-thinking Alzheimer's strategy which again has elements of

preventive medicine, and our Family Health Network has large elements of preventive medicine.

The honourable member seems to have drawn some conclusions which are not borne out by the facts. We on this side of the House take public health extremely

seriously and have been working with public health authorities and public policy designed to have better public health in Ontario.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, you may say that you take public health concerns seriously, but your actions speak otherwise. If it comes to a choice

as to whether I should believe Dr Schabas, the former chief medical officer of health for Ontario, the man who issued warnings time and time again to you, or whether I should believe you or other

representatives of your government, I'm with Dr Schabas. Here are some of the things he said: "As far as I was concerned, the Premier was turning his back on public health." "The Tories always

appeared to be driven by budgetary concerns rather than what was best for public health." "My voice was not being heard." It seems to me that once again you are giving evidence of that.

He has told us today that you are in violation of the law. There are seven communities where we don't have a full-time medical officer of health. He has issued

another warning. He has sounded the alarm bells again today. Minister, why is it that you continue to ignore Dr Schabas's warnings?

Hon Mr Clement: The honourable member is just plain wrong. In fact, of course we as a ministry would be happy to work with any medical

officers of health or any jurisdictions that need some assistance in this area.

I can tell the honourable member that all local health boards have at least acting medical officers of health and therefore are consistent with the Health

Protection and Promotion Act. So when the honourable member makes this accusation on his side that there is somehow a law being broken, he should be very clear about what he is suggesting, because

it just isn't true.

We on this side of the House have put our money where our mouth is. We are supportive of public health. We have been supportive of new programs in public

health. Our record speaks volumes compared to his rhetoric.

ACADEMIC TESTING

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): My question is for the Minister of Education. On Friday you announced new testing for Ontario students.

There are many studies that identify the positive correlation between student testing and better student results. In fact, one study I found recently discovered that students from provinces with

testing programs were better prepared in math and science than students from provinces that lacked such tests.

Minister, can you tell me what commitment the government is making to increase student success at this time?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): As this government clearly believes and we've said many times, if we don't

test, we don't know if our students are learning the new curriculum. The tests I announced on Friday are specifically designed to help teachers determine how well students are learning the

curriculum and determine how best to give students assistance to improve.

The test questions will be for key subjects, core subjects from grades 3 to 11 -- science, for example, and social studies -- and will be phased in over the

next several years. The questions are going to be developed by the EQAO. They obviously have the testing expertise as the government's arm's-length testing agency. These tests, while developed by

them, will be administered and marked by classroom teachers as part of the regular assessment they are doing of students.

Mrs Molinari: Thank you, Minister, for the answer. It is evident that there is a genuine commitment to improve student results and

success.

As you know, I agree that testing plays an important role in a student's education. In fact, I recall that the opposition once felt the same way, but it now

seems they are changing their minds. Of course, as we have seen quite often, the opposition changing their minds has become a common scene here.

Minister, will you confirm that our government will remain committed to improving students' education through effective testing measurements?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Yet again we've seen a flip-flop from the Liberals on this issue. On a very, very important quality standard in education,

while we have the education critic out there saying that testing is not appropriate for students, that he objects to students, that he says it's loony -- he called it "loony," and yet at the same

time his leader has been out there telling the voters that he agrees with the standardized curriculum and with standardized testing.

So here we go again. Dalton says one thing; Gerard says another. Would the real Liberal Party please stand up?

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Minister, on my return from Thunder Bay to Toronto this

morning I was seated beside a constituent of mine, a young mother with her four-month-old baby. They were making a return visit to University Hospital in London for further treatment for the

infant, who is likely to have to undergo heart surgery.

At least this time the mom was able to travel with her baby. When this baby was born, she had to be airlifted to London for emergency life-saving surgery.

There was no room on the air ambulance for the parents of the child, so they had to follow on a commercial flight. This young mom has been denied a northern health travel grant to help cover her

plane costs on the grounds that she had not actually accompanied her infant.

Minister, this is how inhumane your travel grant program has become. We have written to you about this case, as we've written to you about so many others. Why

will you not see the anguish that people are going through and act now to provide fairness for people who have no choice but to travel to get necessary health care?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): As the honourable member is aware, the northern health travel grant preceded this

government. I agree with the honourable member that it is a program that needs to be fixed.

I will not comment on the individual case, but if you can provide me some details later, we can certainly look into it. But from my perspective, we do have a

travel grant program which at times seems inconsistent and deserves to be reformed. That is exactly what this government has been seeking to do. We have been getting lots of feedback from experts,

lots of feedback from citizens in the north, and we're putting it all into the hopper to get a fair program for northerners and a fair program for all Ontarians, regardless of where they live and

regardless of which disease they are afflicted with.

Mrs McLeod: I don't think that answer is going to convince that young mom I was travelling with this morning, Minister. Northern Ontario

residents have tried so long and so hard to get your attention. You have had case after case brought directly to your attention. There have been hundreds of petitions with thousands of names on

them, asking simply for fairness. The only response northerners have had is your Premier saying that the real discrimination is against southern Ontario residents.

Anna Watson was not prepared to accept that, not after she paid $2,500 out of her own pocket to get her cancer care. That's why she went to the Ombudsman.

Northern Ontario residents are angry, they are frustrated and they have waited long enough. Anna Watson was here today with Gerry Lougheed from OSECC, Ontarians Seeking Equal Cancer Care. They are

prepared to take your government to court if you will not act now to end this discrimination.

Minister, I ask you, will you act to right the wrong, or do northern Ontario residents have to take your government to court just to get fair treatment?

Hon Mr Clement: Again, if the person to whom the honourable member referred would like to contact our ministry to work out the issue, I'd be

happy to facilitate that.

Mrs McLeod: We have.

Hon Mr Clement: I can tell the honourable member --

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): We phoned the day after you became minister.

Hon Mr Clement: -- and she knows this full well, and Mr Bartolucci knows full well as well, that there have been instances where they have

communicated to me by correspondence on particular issues about how the northern health travel grant has been applied. I have been facilitating fairness and justice for the issues that deserve

fairness and justice. For these honourable members to stand there and say that we have been inflexible when I have been helping their constituents day in and day out on behalf of the people of

Ontario is beyond the pale and is not right.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is for the Chair of Management Board of Cabinet. I have constituents in my riding who are

concerned about the pace at which information technology is growing in the province. They do not object to the use of information technology but want to ensure that Ontario does not get left

behind. They want to ensure the talented men and women in Ontario will be contenders in this phenomenal growth, creating more jobs and putting more money into the economy.

Minister, does the government have a plan to ensure that this hope becomes a reality? Is it committed to helping this very valuable sector of the economy grow

and compete not only in Canada but around the world? What can you tell my constituents who work for small and medium-sized IT companies who want to make sure they are able to take

part in what this

technological revolution promises?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I'm pleased to say this government believes that development of all sectors

of the economy is a priority. We know that good jobs are an essential part of building a very strong Ontario. That's been evidenced since 1995 by the unprecedented growth of almost 850,000 net new

jobs in Ontario. This not only applies to large companies but also to small and medium companies. That's why we're taking a comprehensive approach, including an advisory council on e-government

which will include people from the IT sector, which will help us in terms of looking at issues concerning the private sector, such as a priorities implementation of e-government, technology and

business alignment, managing processes of large-scale change, linkages between government delivery partners and relationships between government and industry.

Mr Stewart: The government of Ontario itself has a significant role to play in the way it chooses its suppliers for contracts which are worth

several million dollars. Some of its contracts can be very lucrative to awardees. Some business people believe the standards the government applies too heavily favour big businesses and do not

allow smaller competitors a realistic chance. How do you respond to this, and how does the government address this in light of its other responsibilities to the people of Ontario and its government

employees?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I've said it before publicly: this government's committed to becoming a world leader in e-government by the year 2003. This

includes, of course, fostering a very positive business atmosphere and environment. As my colleagues and I have said, this government's first priority is the people of Ontario, which means we're

committed to the prudent management of tax dollars entrusted to us by the taxpayers. We're going to evaluate all contracts with that view of getting the best value.

We'd also like to balance that with encouraging growth in the smaller and medium-sized companies. Part of this is dealing with the advisory council getting

some feedback from the industry itself. However, in the meantime we're taking measures to ensure that we encourage fair competition among companies when competing for government contracts. This

includes participating in forums to allow small and medium business to understand how to deal with government and its contracts and the procurement process.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to give second and third readings to Bill 66,

the Wilfrid Laurier University bill.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): It is a little out of the ordinary to ask the same question, but I understand there may be some movement there,

so I will ask for unanimous consent. I'm afraid I heard some noes. Start the clock. Leader of the third party.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources, who seems not to be here right now. I'm told

he's in the building.

The question concerns another of the Premier's golfing buddies asking for special treatment. We understand that Peter Grant wants to carve out pristine crown

land to build a golf course for himself, for his personal pleasure. He wants to extract huge quantities of water from Twin Lakes. He wants to spray pesticides, herbicides and fertilisers without

regard to environmental values or the concerns of local residents. What's important about this is that Peter Grant happens to have contributed $80,000 to the Conservative Party, including $5,000 to

your election campaign, Minister of Natural Resources. Is this what Ontario has become, that someone who wants a golf course contributes some money to the Conservative Party and then the golf

course flows?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I must say I'm disappointed with the question. It's obvious that the leader of the third

party is using the Toronto Star for his research material, and he's going to be disappointed to know there are some inaccuracies in the question he's asked today. I don't know, and I suspect the

member opposite doesn't know, what is in the mind of Mr Grant. He has made an application to the ministry. It is going through the normal process that any other application made to the ministry

would, and the process is being followed to the T. That's the process that's in place, that's what's happening, and any allegations to the opposite, I haven't seen any evidence of whatsoever.

Mr Hampton: Let me explain for the Minister of Natural Resources. What's on people's minds is this: someone named Peter Minogue, another

Peter, wanted a golf course on the shores of Callander Bay. The Ministry of Natural Resources biologists and fisheries experts over a long-standing period said, "No, this is not in good standing in

terms of environmental values." But Mr Minogue went the political route and the financial route and, lo and behold, a golf course appears despite the objections of the Ministry of Natural

Resources.

What I'm asking you in this case, Minister, is to respect environmental values, put clean water and good forests ahead of Peter Grant's financial contributions

to the Conservative Party. That's the process we'd like to see followed. Can you give us any guarantee you're going to follow the process of protecting environmental values rather than the process

of your financial contributors?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I don't believe this government needs much of a lecture on environmental values when we've created 378 new parks and

protected areas in this province, protecting an additional six million acres for future generations. I don't think we need a lecture from the member opposite, but I can tell the member that one

other component of this decision-making process that is important to the people of Ontario is local decision-making. That's why this is in the hands of the district manager in that area, which it

should be; that's why there have been letters issued to local residents; that's why there have been public meetings; and that's why there's been a public and agency notification period extended

beyond that required by law for an additional 30 days. That's why all of those have taken place.

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES

IN EASTERN ONTARIO

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. I'd like to ask you about the waiting times for MRIs and CAT

scans in the Ottawa area that serve Ottawa and eastern Ontario. Your government had considered carefully to review the situation in Ottawa, which is quite desperate. There were reassurances that we

would see improvements. We have still not seen anything. Let me reassure you that a CAT scan or MRI is no small thing for someone who may have their life hanging in the balance.

In Ottawa as it stands today the waiting lists are far beyond any of the recommendations from your ministry or from Cancer Care Ontario. It has gotten to the

point where we're seeing our doctors leave. Dr Jacques Bouchard, a brilliant surgeon at the Ottawa Hospital, is now departing for Alberta because he is so frustrated with the diagnostic system and

the backlog that is there that he can't stand to work in this particular system.

Minister, I ask you, what do you plan on doing in terms of relieving the long waiting lists in the Ottawa area and eastern Ontario?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I thank the honourable member for the question. Indeed, there are presently three

MRIs currently located in the city of Ottawa. I can tell you that that gives it a ratio that is better than, let's say, western Quebec and other areas of the province of Ontario as well. I can tell

the honourable member that, as he knows, there have been various reports about the state of MRI services in Ottawa. We are in possession of those, and we are making some decisions this year

relating to the fact that we are spending $23.5 billion of the taxpayers' money on the provision of public health services in Ontario this year, a record amount for the sixth year in a row.

Certainly, I'll take the honourable member's point of view under advisement.

Mr Patten: I gather that there isn't anything imminent. Precious time is needed to fight a life-threatening illness, as you well know.

Following my last cancer chemotherapy on May 9, I was then slated to have a CAT scan, the results of which would take over nine weeks to see whether or not I would need to have continued treatment.

If I don't, then everything is fine. If I do, time being the enemy, I might be in jeopardy.

I'm not alone. There are many people of eastern Ontario -- I have three options:

(1) I can wait, which I'm doing;

(2) I could try to use favours and influence

someone here or there. I rejected that option;

(3) I could go to Hull and in one afternoon walk away for $350 to $400. You talked about Quebec. They provide those kinds of services. I ask you to

check your statistics, by the way, because I don't think your ratios are correct.

So I ask you, what do you suggest to those of us who may be in a situation where we may be jeopardized in one way or another? What would you suggest we do?

Which option should we exercise?

Hon Mr Clement: I thank the honourable member for the question. Let me just say I know we're dealing with a very human issue here, and I'm not

belittling that.

I can tell you just for the record that the Ottawa region is served by one MRI machine for every 368,000 population, which compares favourably to many other

regions. Having said all that, obviously what the honourable member is facing -- and obviously all of us wish the best for the honourable member -- is what is in fact being faced by many other

Ontarians, and it just isn't good enough. I agree with the honourable member.

That is why from our point of view we have suggested to the federal government that they should live up to their commitments when it comes to health care

spending. But in the meantime we have to seriously look at the best ways to provide the best service to Ontarians, not only now but also for future generations. That is the big question that is

before us. I think it behooves us as politicians to look very seriously at other alternatives. We cannot bury our heads in the sand. We cannot just pretend that the status quo is going to work in

the future. Certainly the honourable member's perspective is a valid perspective and one which we should take under consideration.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): If we could stop the clock for just a quick moment, we have in the members' gallery west a former member, Dr Bob

Frankford, the member for Scarborough East in the 35th Parliament. Dr Frankford.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): My question is for the Attorney General. Minister, the citizens of Ontario are tired of young offenders being

given a free ride when it comes to sentencing, courtesy of the federal government.

The Young Offenders Act, which has been in effect -- or should I say of no effect -- since 1984, is a toothless embarrassment. To quote Peel Regional Police

Superintendent Ed Toye, "You can go to young offender court right now and hear total disregard for the justice system."

On May 29 the federal government passed its much anticipated -- eight-year wait -- Youth Criminal Justice Act, which was supposed to toughen the Young

Offenders Act. Unfortunately, this bill is as bad as the old one and in some cases worse. The new bill does not address many of the recommendations brought forward by the Mike Harris government and

other province governments.

Minister, would you explain Ontario's position on the federal government's Youth Criminal Justice Act?

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I appreciate the question. In essence, what has happened over the

past few years is that we have seen a federal government, the Liberal Party in Ottawa, essentially ignore not only the representatives in this Legislature who have asked for an opportunity to make

submissions to the federal government about this very important issue but ignore the people of this country.

In fact, in a recent CTV-Angus Reid poll the vast majority of those surveyed indicated that they had little or no confidence whatsoever in the Young Offenders

Act.

The member is quite right. The Youth Criminal Justice Act that has been introduced and is currently in front of the Senate does little or nothing to improve

the situation, and the people of Canada deserve better. That's why we have asked the federal government to give us an opportunity to present to the standing committee and we have asked for an

opportunity to present to the Senate committee, because we have a voice. It's the voice of the people of this country and it deserves to be heard.

Mrs Munro: The McGuinty Liberals have repeatedly said that our government is all sound bite and no solution when it comes to the Young

Offenders Act. Minister, can you please let us know what you have done to try and pressure the federal government to substantially amend this legislation and take some real steps to strengthen

youth justice in Canada?

Hon Mr Young: We have come forward over the past number of weeks with 100 proposed amendments that we have developed after consulting with

front-line police officers and after consulting with victims. They are amendments that will do a great deal, if adopted, to improve the manner in which legislation that exists in this country deals

with young offenders.

It is legislation that if adopted by the federal Parliament -- this is what the Mike Harris government says the federal Liberals should do. We say that if you

commit an adult crime, you deserve adult time. We say that if you use a weapon in the course of an offence, then you should have some jail term. We say that when you're dealing with a serious crime

and a 16- or 17-year-old who is convicted of that offence, there should be public identification so that the communities and the people of this province and of this country understand just what is

going on in the courts and in the communities of this country.

POST-SECONDARY

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, the increased

demand for post-secondary spaces in 2003 and beyond lies mainly in the GTA. The increase in the population of 18- to 24-year-olds is approximately 25% higher in the 905 belt than in the rest of the

province -- in fact, than in the rest of the country.

Most University of Toronto students who live in the 905 area attend the Mississauga and Scarborough campuses. Minister, your SuperBuild to date has not

addressed these specific needs. Can you assure this House that any student who needs to stay in the GTA will not be forced to move because of your government's lack of planning and

underfunding?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women's issues): As the member opposite

knows, the universities and colleges made their submissions to the SuperBuild fund two years ago. All of these announcements, some 59 announcements have been made.

Our analysis is that with the colleges and universities together, the opportunities for spaces have been fairly well distributed. If there is some outstanding

Right now, there are so many opportunities, $1.9 billion, $1.8 billion new buildings, 73,000 spaces yet to be built and offered. I think there is a fair choice

across the province, but I'm happy to discuss any inconsistencies that the member may bring to my attention.

Mrs Bountrogianni: It's not very reassuring that this was missed. Some 20,000 out of the 80,000 students in the double cohort and beyond in

this decade are from the 905 belt, Mississauga and Scarborough. York University and the Mississauga and Scarborough campuses of the University of Toronto must account for the demand for these

spaces. That's a fact. Some 87% of the students at the two University of Toronto campuses live in the GTA and remain at home for their education. These institutions have already had to accept

thousands of students without government support.

Without additional capital investments, students in the 905 area will have to seek a place elsewhere. SuperBuild did not address these specific needs. They

will not be able to live at home. Between 50% and 60% of them require OSAP to go to school. Will you commit today in the House that you will invest the needed capital costs so that these students

who need to stay at home in the 905 belt are able to stay at home?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: In the GTA region there are over 4,480 spaces at Centennial College; there are over 3,000 spaces at Durham College; there

are 1,800 spaces at George Brown college; there are 400 spaces at Ryerson; there are 2,400 spaces at Ryerson for the centre for engineering; 2,050 at Seneca College, and the list goes on:

Sheridan-University of Toronto, University of Toronto, York University, Humber and Guelph, Ryerson and George Brown, Toronto and Sheridan, York and Seneca. These colleges often work together in the

GTA. They have partnerships for joint programs. The colleges and universities were separate. They did their own analysis of what spaces they need for the students and we responded: $1.8 billion;

73,000 new spaces across the province. I would be happy to discuss any specific deficiency that the member feels would be important to address.

CEMETERY MAINTENANCE

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Business Services. Last week the member

for Elgin-Middlesex-London gave a statement in this House regarding rural cemeteries in Ontario and the challenges they are facing when it comes to proper care and maintenance. Minister, could you

clarify for the House what really happens when a cemetery owner can no longer maintain a cemetery?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): Over the last 20 years, when I've had the privilege of being a member of

this Legislature and representing rural constituencies, I've met with many individuals who have voluntarily taken time to take care of our rural cemeteries. This is often done on a volunteer basis

and small boards, small cemeteries, operate in a non-profit mode. The owner is responsible for the upkeep, and hopefully they can gain enough from the sale of the plots and from ongoing fees in

order to sustain their operation. This is the way it has been for over 70 years. If an owner fails to keep up a cemetery, the municipality is then forced to take over.

Mr Gill: In his rant last week, the member from Elgin-Middlesex-London stated that in response to the concerns raised by the Fingal Cemetery

owner, you referred them to the Alcohol and Gaming Commission to, as he said, "stage bingos and sell beer to bury our loved ones." Minister, could you please tell us what you suggested to the owner

of the Fingal Cemetery?

Hon Mr Sterling: That's why I appreciate the opportunity to clarify this particular situation. I would never have been as insensitive as to

suggest this to these people who are doing good work in our rural communities. I did mention to the owner that there are several opportunities where other cemetery owners in rural areas have gone

for financial help.

First of all, because the responsibility would devolve to the municipalities, some municipalities assist rural cemeteries. As well, I noted that at this

particular cemetery that was referred to in the correspondence there had not been any increases in plot prices or in charges since 1994, and I suggested they look at that policy again.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. I see the briefing notes are still here but the

chair is vacant.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock for a quick moment, please. Is the minister still here? The leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: Minister, my federal NDP colleague from Windsor-St Clair, Joe Comartin, has obtained through freedom of information an Environment

Canada draft report that shows that Ontario has become a hotbed of hazardous waste dumping while you and the Liberals in Ottawa ignore the problem. Safety-Kleen, and I'm sure you're aware of

Safety-Kleen near Sarnia, takes in practically all of the imported hazardous waste in Canada destined for landfills. The company is responsible for toxic leaks at the St Clair township site that

people fear will contaminate their water. My question, Minister, is, in a post-Walkerton Ontario, how can you refuse to act on this serious problem?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of the Environment): In response to that question, I'd like to inform the member that we have taken action. We

actually did amend and strengthen Ontario's hazardous waste framework on March 31, 2001, in order to ensure that we have the toughest framework in the history of this province. We have stringent

new leachate testing requirements that are more comprehensive than that of the United States. We have expanded the list of known toxic chemicals from 31 to 88, well ahead of the 40 identified in

the United States. We have brought derived-from-standard in line with the US EPA.

I'd also like the leader of the third party to know that we are finding that the amount of imported hazardous waste has decreased from 1999 to 2000.

Mr Hampton: Minister, I notice that you don't mention changes in law. What you've mentioned is simply a framework, and because the law remains

the same, you've essentially got a situation where Ontario is the worst jurisdiction in North America. Let me tell you what's not in your laws. These companies can dump what they want. They don't

have to report annually to protection authorities. They don't have to provide for groundwater quality monitoring. They don't have to treat their hazardous waste before dumping. They don't even have

to have a plan in place in case of emergency.

What has happened is this: every other jurisdiction in North America has been updating their environmental protection laws to deal with the dumping of

hazardous waste, except for your government, which has held out an open hand that says, "Hazardous waste dumpers, you're welcome in Ontario." I ask you the question again: in post-Walkerton

Ontario, are you finally going to clean up your act?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The leader of the third party is wrong. He is categorically wrong. We are reviewing our hazardous waste policy. We will

continue to take steps to strengthen it. As I've just indicated to the member opposite, we have seen a decrease in the amount of hazardous waste coming into this province and we are seeing an

increase of what is being expanded. So I would hasten to encourage you to make sure that next time you get your facts straight.

The Speaker: New question.

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Minister, I'm going to ask you to meet your

ministerial responsibility and actually stop accepting toxic hazardous waste into the province, most of which you know is landfilled and incinerated in St Clair township at Safety-Kleen. Your

ministry made it easy for Safety-Kleen to expand in 1997. The site has leaks, our groundwater is at risk and your rules are still so lax that, unlike in the United States, at Safety-Kleen hazardous

waste is simply dumped into the ground. Incredibly, 70% of that waste comes from outside the province.

Under Minister Sterling, Minister Clement and now yourself, the provincial environment checks and balances have been weakened. Irreparable damage is being done

to the environment of that part of southwestern Ontario, and I don't know how we'll ever clean it up.

Minister, will you stop accepting toxic hazardous waste from outside the province since you don't have the regulations to deal with these wastes in an

environmentally sound manner?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The member opposite knows full well that the health and safety of the residents in her community are priorities for this

government. In fact, we want to assure all the people who live near the landfill site that we are taking the steps that are necessary to safeguard their health and their environment.

She knows full well we have ensured that Safety-Kleen hire an on-site inspector and that they are providing an enhanced level of monitoring at the site. I want

to assure her that we will continue to monitor the activities at Safety-Kleen and also any further expansion.

Ms Di Cocco: Minister, you didn't answer my question. You don't have the checks and balances in place. You have allowed and have undermined

the regulations your government has, until we have become the largest toxic dump in Canada, most of which is being imported. We are importing more than they import into Mexico.

You have the jurisdiction to ban and restrict the accepting of hazardous waste. You are not managing the waste in an environmentally sound manner. In 1996,

1997 and 1998, your ministry and the Red Tape Commission weakened the rules for hazardous waste disposal and recycling. This ban and restriction is needed because it's necessary to protect human,

animal and plant life and health. Will you meet your ministerial obligation and ban the accepting of hazardous waste since you do not have your act together on this matter?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would say to the member opposite that she is being very selective in the choice of years. Perhaps she should have gone to

1999 and 2000. How deceitful to simply not pull all of the information --

The Speaker: Order. I'm afraid you have to withdraw that remark.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I withdraw that, Mr Speaker.

But how selective. If she takes a look at what was imported in 1999, it was 321,000 tonnes. In 2000, it was only 210,000 tonnes. Meanwhile, the exports have

gone from 175,000 tonnes in 1999 to 220,000 tonnes in 2000.

Furthermore, she is conveniently neglecting to mention that Environment Canada -- the federal government -- is responsible for regulating the import and export

of hazardous waste into and out of Canada. She also continues to omit the fact that we have strengthened our hazardous waste framework in 2001. Conveniently, she only chooses to talk about the

years to 1998. She needs to share all the facts with her constituents and the people in this province.

PETITIONS

HOME CARE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition that reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the need for home care services is rapidly growing in Ontario due to the aging of the population and hospital restructuring; and

"Whereas the prices paid by community care access centres, commonly known as CCACs, to purchase home care services for their clients are rising due to factors

beyond the control of the CCACs; and

"Whereas the funding provided by the Ontario government through the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care is inadequate to meet the growing need for home care

services; and

"Whereas the funding shortfall, coupled with the implications of Bill 46, the Public Sector Accountability Act, currently before the Legislature, are forcing

CCACs such as Niagara to make deep cuts in home care services without any policy direction from the provincial government;

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

"

(1) That the Legislative Assembly direct the provincial government to take control of policy-setting for home care services through rational, population-based

health care planning rather than simply by underfunding the system; and

"

(2) That the Legislative Assembly direct the provincial government to provide sufficient funding to CCACs to support the home care services that are the

mandate of CCACs in the volumes needed to meet their communities' rapidly growing needs; and

"

(3) That the Legislative Assembly make it necessary for the provincial government to notify the agencies it funds of the amount of funding they will be given

by the government in a fiscal year at least three months before the commencement of this fiscal year."

I affix my signature. I am in complete agreement.

ELECTRICITY DEREGULATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislature.

"Whereas the Harris government's plan to privatize and deregulate Ontario's electricity system will lead to higher rates because private owners will sell more

power to US customers whose rates are typically 50% higher than Ontario's; and

"Whereas selling coal plants like Nanticoke to the private sector will lead to more pollution because the private owners will run the plants at full capacity

to earn a profit; and

"Whereas electricity deregulation in California has led to sky-high rates and blackouts; and

"Whereas Ontario needs a system of public power that will ensure rate stability, environmental protection and secure access to power;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the undersigned call on the government to scrap electricity deregulation and privatization and bring in a system of accountable

public power. The first priority for such a public power system must be incentives for energy conservation and green power. Electricity rates and major energy projects must be subject to full

public hearings and binding rulings by a public regulator instead of leaving energy rates to private profit."

This has been signed by dozens of citizens and individuals across Ontario and I have affixed my signature to it as well.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I am pleased to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as

follows:

"Whereas wide parental and student choice are essential to the best possible education for all students; and

"Whereas many people believe that an education with a strong faith component, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or another religion, is best for their

children; and

"Whereas many people believe that special education methodologies such as those practised in the Montessori and Waldorf schools are best for their children;

and

"Whereas over 100,000 students are currently enrolled in the independent schools of Ontario; and

"Whereas the parents of these students continue to support the public education system through their tax dollars; and

"Whereas an effective way to enhance the education of those students is to allow an education tax credit for a portion of the tuition fees paid for that

education;

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

"To pass the budget bill giving tax credits to parents of children who attend independent schools as soon as possible."

I affix my signature.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): On the one-year anniversary of Ontarians Seeking Equal Cancer Care, I am proud to read the following petition

into the record:

"Whereas the northern health travel grant offers a reimbursement of partial travel costs at a rate of 30.4 cents per kilometre one way for northerners forced

to travel for cancer care while travel policy for southerners who travel for cancer care features full reimbursement costs for travel, meals and accommodation;

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

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

"Whereas northern Ontario residents pay the same amount of taxes and are entitled to the same access to health care and all government services and inherent

civil rights as residents living elsewhere in the province;

"Whereas we support the efforts of OSECC (Ontarians Seeking Equal Cancer Care), founded by Gerry Lougheed Jr, former chair of Cancer Care Ontario, Northeast

Region, to correct this injustice against northerners travelling for cancer treatment;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand the Mike Harris government move immediately to fund full travel

expenses for northern Ontario cancer patients and eliminate the health care apartheid which exists presently in the province of Ontario."

I proudly give these to Anthony Gras, our page from Sudbury, Ontario, to deliver to the desk, and I of course affix my signature as I'm in complete

agreement.

HOME CARE

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario community care access centres deliver vital home care services to seniors, the disabled and those discharged from hospital so they can

remain in their own homes; and

"Whereas the Ontario community care access centres need an additional $175 million from the Ministry of Health this fiscal year just to deliver their current

level of health care services; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has refused to fund this necessary increase and has further failed to provide the CCACs with equity funding last year and this

year, despite a 1998 promise by the former Minister of Long-Term Care, Cam Jackson, to do so; and

"Whereas this deliberate underfunding by the government of CCACs has forced the CCAC boards to adopt a deficit-reduction plan which severely reduces the home

care services they provide; and

"Whereas this reduction has a drastic impact on clients who cannot afford to pay for these services and will be forced to go without necessary home care;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the Conservative government immediately fund the additional $175 million requested by the Ontario CCACs this year and, further,

provide the equity funding that was promised in 1998."

This is signed by people in support of the East York, Toronto and Scarborough CCACs, and I have affixed my signature in support as well.

ELECTRICITY GENERATING STATION

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): This is a petition on behalf of the residents of Mississauga South and Oakville. It was tabled with

the Speaker, who is unable to present petitions, and I'm happy to present it on his behalf and also on my own as the member for Mississauga South.

"Whereas Sithe Energies Canadian Development Ltd is actively pursuing the development of an 800-megawatt electricity generating facility;

"Whereas the 14-hectare parcel of land on which the station is proposed is located on the east side of Winston Churchill Boulevard in the Southdown industrial

district of Mississauga;

"Whereas Sithe has stated its commitment to an open dialogue with communities where it has a presence and to being responsive to the concerns of the same;

and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has a responsibility to ensure the safety of Ontario citizens and to determine how this facility will impact those who live

in its immediate surrounding area,

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

"That the government of Ontario direct the Ministry of the Environment to undertake a formal environmental assessment of the Sithe project."

I'm happy to have signed this petition and support it wholeheartedly.

SAFE STREETS LEGISLATION

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I have a petition from the good people of Chesterville and Winchester, Ontario.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the squeegee kid law was set up to stop squeegee kids from hassling motorists, we believe that the law has gone too far; it has now stopped the Lions

Club of Chesterville ... from raising money for the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario.

"The law has to be changed to exclude all non-profit organizations, otherwise the various fire department fundraisers, fundraising parades etc will have to

cease and desist immediately;

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

"To rewrite the squeegee kid law, to exclude all non-profit organizations."

I have about 500 signatures from the good people of Winchester and Chesterville, and I affix my signature to this as well.

HOME CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the need for home care services is rapidly growing in Ontario due to the aging of the population and hospital restructuring; and

"Whereas the prices paid by community care access centres to purchase home care services for their clients are rising due to factors beyond the control of

community care access centres; and

"Whereas the funding provided by the Ontario government through the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care is inadequate to meet the growing need for home care

services; and

"Whereas the funding shortfall, coupled with the implications of Bill 46, the Public Sector Accountability Act, currently before the Legislature are forcing

CCACs to make deep cuts in home care services without any policy direction from the provincial government;

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

"

(1) That the Legislative Assembly direct the provincial government to take control of policy-setting for home care services through rational, population-based

health care planning rather than simply by underfunding the system; and

"

(2) That the Legislative Assembly direct the provincial government to provide sufficient funding to CCACs to support the home care services that are the

mandate of CCACs in the volumes needed to meet their communities' rapidly growing needs; and

"

(3) That the Legislative Assembly make it necessary for the provincial government to notify the agencies it funds of the amount of funding they will be given

by the government in a fiscal year at least three months before the commencement of that fiscal year."

This is signed by 1,738 constituents in the riding of Nickel Belt. I agree with the petitioners and I have signed it as well.

PROTECTION OF MINORS

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

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

"Whereas many municipalities do not have bylaws in place to protect minors, and those that do vary from place to place and have failed to protect minors from

unwanted exposure to sexually explicit materials;

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

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

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

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

WATER EXTRACTION

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I have a petition here which is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas we, the residents and cottagers of Bob's Lake, strenuously object to the permit issued by the Ministry of the Environment to OMYA Inc to remove 1.5

million litres of water per day from the Tay River, without adequate assessment of the consequences and without adequate consultation with the public and those people and groups who have expertise

and interest in the area; and

"Whereas it is our belief that this water taking will drastically impact the environment and seriously affect the water levels in Bob's and Christie lakes.

This in turn would affect fish spawning beds as well as habitat. It would also affect the wildlife in and around the lakes;

"Whereas Bob's Lake and the Tay River watershed are already highly stressed by the historic responsibility of Parks Canada to use Bob's Lake as a reservoir for

the Rideau Canal; and

"Whereas the movement of water from the lake through the watershed for navigation purposes in the canal provides sufficient stress and problems for the lake.

This water taking permit will only compound the stresses on the waterway;

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

"We request that this permit be rescinded until a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of water taking by OMYA Inc on the environment, the water levels and

the water needs of these communities is complete. An independent non-partisan body should undertake this evaluation."

I agree with the petition and I've signed it.

PERSONAL NEEDS ALLOWANCE

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have further petitions from the Hamilton second level lodging home tenants committee. The petition

reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas individuals who are tenants (residents) in facilities such as care homes, nursing homes or domiciliary hostels under certain acts are provided with a

personal needs allowance to meet incidental costs other than those provided by the facility; and

"Whereas the personal needs allowance has been fixed by the Ontario government at a rate of $112 a month for nearly a decade and has not kept pace with

cost-of-living increases, and furthermore is inadequate to meet incidental costs such as clothing, hygiene products and other essentials;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately review and amend provincial legislation to increase the personal needs

allowance from $112/month to $160/month for individuals living in care homes, nursing homes or other domiciliary hostels."

On behalf of my NDP colleagues, I add my name to this petition.

VISITORS