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

June 21, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Jun-21 vol. A (PDF)

L076A - Wed 21 Jun 2000 / Mer 21 jun 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WATER QUALITY

LARRY DAVIS

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

MERIDIAN GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY

HEALTH CARE

AIR QUALITY

LEGACY OF LOGAN

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HOSPICE THORNHILL

VISITORS

SPEAKER'S RULING

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPALITY OF WEST PERTH ACT, 2000

INQUIRY INTO POLICE INVESTIGATIONS OF SEXUAL ABUSE AGAINST MINORS IN THE CORNWALL AREA ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 PRÉVOYANT UNE ENQUÊTE SUR LES ENQUÊTES POLICIÈRES SUR LES PLAINTES DE MAUVAIS TRAITEMENTS D'ORDRE SEXUEL INFLIGÉS À DES MINEURS DANS LA RÉGION DE CORNWALL

PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES' SEVERANCE PAY ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR L'INDEMNITÉ DE CESSATION D'EMPLOI DES EMPLOYÉS DU SECTEUR PUBLIC

TOBACCO CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION DE L'USAGE DU TABAC

LYNN HENDERSON'S LAW (WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT), 2000 / LOI LYNN HENDERSON DE 2000 (MODIFICATION DE LA

LOI SUR LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE ET L'ASSURANCE CONTRE LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL)

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

VISITORS

DEFERRED VOTES

BRIAN'S LAW (MENTAL HEALTH LEGISLATIVE REFORM), 2000 / LOI BRIAN DE 2000 SUR LA RÉFORME LÉGISLATIVE CONCERNANT LA SANTÉ MENTALE

ORAL QUESTIONS

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

CASINO NIAGARA

WASTE DISPOSAL

PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES

AIR QUALITY

LANDFILL

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

STROKE STRATEGY

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

ST CLAIR PARKWAY COMMISSION

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

SAFE DRINKING WATER LEGISLATION

KARLA HOMOLKA

HUNTING IN WILDERNESS PARKS

CHILD POVERTY

LORD'S PRAYER

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

STUDDED TIRES

SUPPORT PROGRAM

SCHOOL CLOSURES

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

ONTARIO WORKS

HUNTING IN WILDERNESS PARKS

DURHAM COLLEGE

SPEAKER'S RULING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WATER QUALITY

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I rise today, unfortunately, to comment on another incident involving drinking water. A boil-water advisory has been issued by the Brant County Health Unit, the Grand River Conservation Authority and the mayor of the city of the county of Brant for the people of Glen Morris in the riding of Brant. This announcement was made as a result of E coli testing showing unacceptable levels of the bacteria in their water supply.

Officials are now hand-chlorinating the source of the drinking water. A private firm has been hired to investigate the present system and make recommendations for possible changes to the entire system. As an additional safety measure, the Grand River Conservation Authority has closed permanently the popular, publicly accessible spring-fed water source on Highway 24 near Cambridge.

Due to the proactive stance our local officials have taken, we may indeed have averted a crisis.

I repeat again for the government, we must not take our life-giving water and air for granted and we must take responsibility for our actions and/or inactions. I implore the government: Restore provincial inspectors, fully fund our local agencies so they can effectively do their jobs, stop the drive to privatize our province and, for God's sake, stop endangering our water in order to save a few bucks.

LARRY DAVIS

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Joining us today in the members' gallery is Constable Larry Davis of the Cobourg Police Service. He is the strongest police officer in Canada.

Constable Davis recently earned this distinguished title at the Canadian Law Enforcement Games in Ottawa. Not only did he finish first in the Ottawa competition, bench-pressing an incredible 365 pounds, Mr Davis's other feats include pulling school buses, lifting 200-pound logs over his head and holding a keg of beer in each hand with arms extended.

If sheer physical strength doesn't impress you, Constable Davis is also leading the way in another area. He is the first police officer in the Cobourg community to be assigned specifically to work in our local high schools, spending three days a week working directly with the students. This was made possible through our government's community policing grants which last year provided 50% funding for communities to hire an additional 1,000 new police officers across Ontario.

I'm very impressed with Constable Davis and I'm proud that he serves in my riding of Northumberland.

When Constable Davis isn't busy protecting our community, lifting weights and pulling buses, he devotes his time to local high school athletics, where he stands as a role model for all of our young people.

On behalf of the province of Ontario and the people of Northumberland, I offer my sincerest congratulations to Constable Davis. Would the members of this House please join with me in offering a great round of applause for Constable Davis.

Applause.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): On Monday, in response to my question, the minister responsible for the Ontario Human Rights Commission bragged about her government's perceived successes at the commission. Let me tell you the reality of the situation.

This government does not tell us that more than 50% of the cases that have come to the attention of the commission are either withdrawn, dismissed or not dealt with by the commission. This government also does not tell us that some complainants are discouraged to seek redress by the commission.

The minister also fails to tell us that even if a complainant is successful at the commission hearing, there is a great probability that they may not realize their remedy. Far too many successful complainants are forced to wait endlessly to receive their remedy. In fact, some are compelled to seek redress against those convicted by the commission in the criminal justice system to receive their remedy. This should not be happening.

The evidence overwhelmingly reveals that the Ontario Human Rights Commission lacks the resources to deal with the backlog of cases and also lacks the mandate to enforce its decision.

It is evident that only when we have a full review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's effectiveness and the necessary changes made that the people of Ontario have the confidence that the system works. What we have at present is a right with no meaningful remedy.

I urge this government to proceed quickly and call for a full review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's mandate. You can see what happened today, where women are scared because restraining orders are not even followed.

MERIDIAN GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): Great news from Lambton-Kent-Middlesex today. On June 10, I had the opportunity to attend the opening of Meridian's Global Technology Centre, strategically located in Ontario on the edge of the NAFTA Superhighway in Strathroy, Ontario, which is located in my riding of Lambton-Kent-Middlesex.

Meridian is a truly global technology organization, with production facilities that serve markets around the world. Centred between European and Asia-Pacific markets, Strathroy is an ideal location that can best serve the needs of east and west and all of North America. In reality, Meridian's Global Technology Centre is in touch with all these markets daily by conventional means of travel and through the virtual reality of today's state-of-the-art internal technology communications systems.

From advanced engineering to product simulation and forward programs, Meridian provides hands-on solution and expertise to existing and growing markets globally. Through a knowledgeable base of in-depth experience, creative innovation and leading magnesium production know-how, Meridian has opened new markets in the auto parts sector internationally.

Meridian's people are problem-solvers that are tested every day while handling a wide range of customers' challenges. Meridian's people are the real strength of the company.

Meridian will also play a major role in maintaining the economic health in the riding of Sarnia-Lambton and, may I add, in Ontario. We wish them the best in the future.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): It's incredible that Canada, which takes pride in having one of the best health care systems in the world, should be ranked number 30 in the World Health Organization's study of health care in 191 countries. We are not number 30 because the quality of our health care is poor; in fact, we are seventh in the ranking of the health of our population. The reason we are low is because we expect people to pay too much out of their own pockets for health care.

Among G7 countries, only the United States is lower than Canada in the percentage of our health care spending that is funded by government, which means we are number two in what we expect people to pay for privately.

What is alarming, I say to the members opposite, is that people in the province of Ontario pay even more out of pocket for health care than is expected of other Canadians. Across Canada, 30% of health care costs are paid for privately. In Ontario, the percentage is 34% and it's growing every year. People are expected to pay out of pocket for more and more services that have been delisted from OHIP. They are paying more for physiotherapy and private clinics because the OHIP-funded clinics are being squeezed out of business. They are paying more for home care because home care services are rationed.

They are paying newer, larger co-payments for drugs or for long-term care. In the north, people are forced to pay for travel to get care. That doesn't even count in the 34%. People are paying to jump the queue to get MRIs, which isn't legal, but it is what seems to happen if you mix public and private care in the same facility.

Canada has always prided itself, not just on the quality of our health care system, but on the fact that health care in this country is universally accessible. The report of the World Health Organization has a sobering message for us: We are losing that universal access. We do have a good health care system. Now the challenge is to make sure everyone can benefit from it.

AIR QUALITY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): I just came back from a smog summit, in which all three levels of government were represented. Jack Layton, the mayor, who organized it, spoke, and I must congratulate him for getting such a fine turnout; the federal ministers of the environment and of transportation and the Ontario Minister of the Environment were there. It was a very polite meeting.

There were not a lot of new things announced today, but I will say that it was a positive step forward in that all three levels of government did come together, with no new announcements particularly, but signed an agreement that they would work together to try to do something about smog, which is killing thousands of people in this province every year.

Today I'm calling on the government to do one very small thing, on top of all the other things I've asked the government to do to cut down and prevent smog. I'm calling on the government to stand up for clean air and block attempts to ban small ride-sharing services in Ontario. The government is going out of its way to make life easy for well-established bus companies by stopping the little guys who offer cheap alternative ideas, but this will also encourage people to get back in their cars and drive, which contributes to smog, when these small alternative methods are taken away.

The Ontario Highway Transport Board plans to investigate four ride-sharing services to see if they should be banned. At a time when we're trying to do something about smog, the government should take a position and save these ride-shares across Ontario.

LEGACY OF LOGAN

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): On Sunday, June 11, I had the privilege of attending a book launching ceremony for a community in my riding of Perth-Middlesex. The township of Logan, now part of the municipality of West Perth, is celebrating its 150th anniversary this year. To commemorate this milestone, local residents have produced a history book entitled Legacy of Logan.

A large celebration is planned for the weekend of July 14. There will be a variety program, a fireworks display, baseball games, an interdenominational church service and many other fun-filled activities.

The Logan township history book committee, chaired by Barb Scherbarth, has produced a very handsome 720-page book with photos and details about the township's past.

I congratulate all the volunteers who have worked so hard in organizing the many activities that are planned for the 150th celebration next month. In particular, I would like to recognize the co-chairs, Geraldine Siemon and Barry and Eileen Dietz. The members of the history book committee, Bruce Eisler, Carol Francis, Ellen Illman, Ellen Maloney, Wilma McFadden, Tim Nicholson, Diane Osborn, Jean Reaney, Margaret Scherbarth, Gerry Snyders and Gordon Young, should also be congratulated for their work. The editor of the book is Hilary Machan. Again, I congratulate and thank those volunteers for their dedication.

As the township celebration motto so aptly says, "Pride in our past, faith in our future."

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I want to use my time today to urge the Minister of Municipal Affairs, in the strongest possible terms, to set aside his decision to move ahead with the restructuring of Beardmore, Geraldton, Longlac, Nakina and the surrounding unorganized communities into the new municipality of Greenstone, at least until the Supreme Court has an opportunity to rule on the appeals before it opposing this amalgamation.

I have been opposed to this amalgamation from the very beginning. I have always felt that a municipality of this size was unworkable, would not achieve the anticipated savings and would negatively impact on the quality of life of the residents of this vast area. While I believed that was the case four years ago, I feel very strongly that that is even more demonstrably true today.

Minister, as recently as a month ago you wrote the area mayors and reeves to say that the amalgamation still made sense because of a potential for $1 million in savings. Even the supporters of this restructuring acknowledge that those savings will not happen and, in that your reasons for moving ahead with this have always been related to savings to taxpayers, the fact that these savings will not be there should be reason enough for you to cancel this amalgamation.

There are a variety of other reasons why this restructuring should be stopped, including the frightening potential of more provincial downloading to property taxpayers and the fact that area services boards, created especially for northern communities, completely negate the need for this massive restructuring.

Minister, there are other options you can explore which could meet your goals without ripping the independence and the heart out of these communities. Please explore those options before you turn a region that once worked strongly together on shared goals into a sadly divided, torn-apart and massive community.

HOSPICE THORNHILL

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): It is my pleasure and privilege to rise today to tell you about wonderful work that's being done in my community of Thornhill by Hospice Thornhill.

Hospice Thornhill was incorporated as a non-profit organization in May 1987. It is a community-based volunteer service to meet the needs of persons with life-threatening illnesses. Hospice volunteers are specifically trained over a six-week period and complement existing health care teams in York region. The hospice provides services to meet the non-medical needs of the terminally ill person and family in the home setting.

Staff and volunteers provide 24-hour service and offer emotional support and respite care to family and friends, visit patients and accompany patients to appointments. They also assist with nourishment, telephone calls and shopping, and offer assistance during times of bereavement and continuing support through the Take Heart self-help groups.

At a recent fundraiser I was extremely impressed to meet many of the dedicated staff and volunteers who work so tirelessly on behalf of Hospice Thornhill. It was an honour to meet one of the founding members, Marleene Kretchman, as well as John Kain, chair of the board, and Joan Chesney, Libby Bailey, Isabelle Welsh and Anne Thompson. These people are here with us today and I ask that you join me in welcoming them to the Legislature, congratulating them for the dedication and commitment they offer.

VISITORS

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As you know, it's always very nice to have people in the public gallery. Today we have two very special groups in the gallery. In the gallery behind me is a group of students from Sudbury who are sort of setting a record. They are going to be the last grade 7 and 8 class at St Louis de Gonzage school. St Louis is going to be closing in June. I would like to welcome them warmly. They are certainly model citizens.

On the other side in the public gallery we have a group of people from Hamilton, and in that group is a very special person, the mother of Dominic Agostino, Mrs Teresa Agostino. I think we want to welcome both groups to the House.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We certainly welcome all the guests, especially Mrs Agostino. The member for Hamilton East will be very well behaved today, I'm sure. In some respects, we wish she could be here every day.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): On Monday, June 12, the member for Parkdale-High Park raised a point of privilege relating to an advertisement sponsored by the government that addresses issues relating to Bill 74 and specifically after-school activities.

The member asserted that the advertisement amounted to a prima facie case of contempt, likening it to the ad that was the subject of a January 22, 1997, ruling by Speaker Stockwell. Further, the member objected to the timing of the ad, which coincided with public hearings on the subject.

The government House leader, Mr Sterling, also made a submission respecting this point of privilege. It was his view that the ad in question makes no "presumption that the legislation is law or has passed."

I listened carefully to the arguments put forward and I have obtained a transcript of and reviewed the text of the ad. In addition, I have reviewed the precedents relating to privilege and government advertising.

First, to address the ruling of January 22, 1997, by Speaker Stockwell, in that instance the government had distributed a brochure which used words which presumed passage of the bill in question. The language used was definitive in that it indicated that the measures contained in the bill had already or would certainly occur.

This, in my view, is not the case with the ad in question today. It simply states that the government is taking action with respect to extracurricular activities. It does not reflect upon or presume the outcome of the proceedings of the Legislature. This ad is more akin to ads the government ran on Bill 160, which were also the subject of a ruling by Speaker Stockwell. On November 18, 1997, in respect of those ads, Speaker Stockwell stated:

"The ads may represent an aggressive challenge to opposing views put forward by others, but I do not believe they caused any of us to come here without the uncontested ability to continue the debate on this issue, nor can it be argued that the respect due to this House is diminished by the wording of the ads."

As to the timing of the ads, I note that such advertising has occurred on at least four other occasions concurrently with consideration of the matter in the House or its committees. That in and of itself does not make it acceptable. However, the determination with respect to privilege has to be whether or not the effect of the ad has been to intimidate members or cause them to be obstructed in carrying out their parliamentary functions. I do not believe this ad has had that effect. Indeed, the members have continued to debate and vote on Bill 74 unimpeded.

For these reasons, I find that a prima facie case of contempt has not been made out. I thank the member for his submission.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): Pursuant to standing order 119(b), I beg leave to present a report with respect to an appeal on a decision of the Chair of the standing committee on estimates by the majority of the standing committee.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the member. I shall review the report of the Chair of the standing committee on estimates and will advise the House, at the earliest opportunity, of my decision.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPALITY OF WEST PERTH ACT, 2000

Mr Johnson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr17,

An Act to change the name of The Corporation of the Township of West Perth to The Corporation of the Municipality of West Perth.

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

INQUIRY INTO POLICE INVESTIGATIONS OF SEXUAL ABUSE AGAINST MINORS IN THE CORNWALL AREA ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 PRÉVOYANT UNE ENQUÊTE SUR LES ENQUÊTES POLICIÈRES SUR LES PLAINTES DE MAUVAIS TRAITEMENTS D'ORDRE SEXUEL INFLIGÉS À DES MINEURS DANS LA RÉGION DE CORNWALL

Mr Guzzo moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 103,

An Act to establish a commission of inquiry to inquire into the investigations by police forces into sexual abuse against minors in the Cornwall area / Projet de loi 103, Loi visant à créer une commission chargée d'enquêter sur les enquêtes menées par des corps de police sur les plaintes de mauvais traitements d'ordre sexuel infligés à des mineurs dans la région de Cornwall.

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

The member for a short statement.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean): On Christmas Eve of 1994, at a press conference, the Ontario Provincial Police ended a 14-month investigation into this matter saying there was no evidence of a pedophile ring operating and that no charges were to be laid. They also suggested that no stone had been left unturned.

Today, after Project Truth went back into Cornwall in 1996, 114 charges have been laid, 108 for offences which allegedly occurred years prior to 1994. It begs the question, was the 1994 investigation incompetent or was there a cover-up?

Over $200,000 was spent by the people of Ontario, private citizens, to do the police work between 1994 and 1996 to provide the evidence for Project Truth. It seems to me that those people should be reimbursed for doing the work of the Ontario Provincial Police.

PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES' SEVERANCE PAY ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR L'INDEMNITÉ DE CESSATION D'EMPLOI DES EMPLOYÉS DU SECTEUR PUBLIC

Mrs Bountrogianni moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 104,

An Act respecting the payment of Severance Pay to Public Sector Employees / Projet de loi 104, Loi concernant le versement d'indemnités de cessation d'emploi aux employés du secteur public.

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

The member for a short statement.

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): The incentive for this bill came from some outlandish golden handshakes in Hamilton recently which led to, quite legitimately, public mistrust.

In the case of severance payment in an amount of $100,000 or more, the employer is required to obtain the approval of the minister before the amount is paid to the employee.

The bill establishes a Public Sector Employee Severance Pay Council to review all agreements relating to severance pay entered into by public sector employers and determine whether they comply with the act and the regulations. The bill also provides that if a public sector employee who receives severance pay finds other employment in the public sector after his or her termination, he or she will have to reimburse a part of the severance pay determined by regulation to the employer in certain circumstances that may be set by regulation.

Finally, the bill requires that if a public sector employee is to receive severance pay of $100,000 or more, the employer must make available for inspection a written record of the amount of the severance pay.

TOBACCO CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION DE L'USAGE DU TABAC

Mr Gilchrist moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 105,

An Act to amend the Tobacco Control Act, 1994 / Projet de loi 105, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1994 sur la réglementation de l'usage du tabac.

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

The member for a short statement.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): This bill would amend the Tobacco Control Act, 1994, to create an offence for a person under the age of 19 not only in the purchasing but also in the possession of tobacco.

At present, no person is allowed to sell or store tobacco in a place where a person has committed two tobacco sales offences. The bill provides for an exception for a person who is not related to the person convicted of the offences, in case someone was to sell the store, for example, that had created the offence. The bill also prohibits the person convicted of the tobacco sales offences from selling or storing tobacco in any other place of business.

LYNN HENDERSON'S LAW (WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT), 2000 / LOI LYNN HENDERSON DE 2000 (MODIFICATION DE LA

LOI SUR LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE ET L'ASSURANCE CONTRE LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL)

Mr Christopherson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 106,

An Act, in recognition of Lynn Henderson, to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, in order to provide for compensation for secondary victims of occupational disease / Projet de loi 106, Loi Lynn Henderson modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la sécurité professionnelle et l'assurance contre les accidents du travail afin de prévoir l'indemnisation des victimes indirectes de maladies professionnelles.

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

The member for a short statement.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): This bill will allow compensation for the secondary victims of occupational disease-people like Lynn Henderson, who is here today in the House with her daughter, Jessica, and mother, Joyce Stinson-and who suffer from industrial disease just because they lived with someone who brought home the poisonous materials on their work clothes. Might I say that Lynn Henderson is dying. She has lost a lung. Her doctors told her she would die in two years, and that was two years ago. We've also lost a 15-year-old son of a worker who worked at Holmes Foundry. Donald Fitzsimmons is dead because of workplace exposures, and he didn't work there.

This bill also allows for compensation for those who contracted cancer through airborne asbestos fibres in communities like Sarnia. We don't know exactly how many such victims there are, and that is why the bill also requires Ontario to do a survey of Lambton county and to establish a system to identify potential claimants across Ontario.

This bill will make Ontario a world leader in recognizing and combatting occupational disease, and I urge all parties to support it.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(c)(ii), the House shall meet from 6:45 pm to midnight on Wednesday, June 21, 2000, 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 opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before our deferred vote, we have with us today in the Speaker's gallery members of the labour market committee of the Danish Parliament, who are accompanied by the Ambassador of Denmark to Canada. Please join me in welcoming our special guests.

DEFERRED VOTES

BRIAN'S LAW (MENTAL HEALTH LEGISLATIVE REFORM), 2000 / LOI BRIAN DE 2000 SUR LA RÉFORME LÉGISLATIVE CONCERNANT LA SANTÉ MENTALE

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 68,

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

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

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1401 to 1406.

The Speaker: Would the members kindly take their seats.

Mr Clark has moved third reading of Bill 68,

An Act, in memory of Brian Smith, to amend the Mental Health Act and the Health Care Consent Act, 1996.

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

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Beaubien, Marcel

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Cleary, John C.

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Gravelle, Michael

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael D.

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Levac, David

Marland, Margaret

Martin, Tony

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

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

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Churley, Marilyn

Curling, Alvin

Hampton, Howard

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Lankin, Frances

Marchese, Rosario

Peters, Steve

Ruprecht, Tony

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 82; the nays are 10.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. The death toll in Walkerton may now be as high as 18, and that's not just a number. As many as 18 families have lost a child, a parent or a grandparent, and what shocked all Ontarians was the way they died. Death by drinking water is not something you expect in Ontario in the early part of the 21st century.

This is probably the last time you will appear in this Legislature prior to the House rising tomorrow for the summer, and I'm going to ask you to do two things that you have failed to do thus far. First of all, I want you to accept responsibility for the problems caused by your relentless and ruthless cuts to the Ministry of the Environment. Second, I want you to start rehiring the inspectors and enforcement officers you have let go. Will you do those two things, Premier?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Let me say that the events of Walkerton shocked all of us, shocked me personally, shocked Ontarians, which is why we've been very clear from the outset that we had obligations as a government to immediately provide assistance to Walkerton and why we immediately began a process of reviewing all the pertinent regulations and legislation around drinking water. We have announced four reviews directly related to Walkerton to get to the bottom of what went wrong there. In addition, we've announced a management review to assist the Ministry of the Environment to make sure it is the very best that it can possibly be.

I sincerely appreciate the member's advice on solutions, and we'll certainly take it under consideration along with the expert opinion that we have sought as well.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, this has been a very, very sad time for Ontario, and it has been your government's darkest hour. You tried to blame the NDP, you tried to blame human error, you tried to blame the municipalities and even the town of Walkerton itself, which is immersed in this tragedy. You fought our calls for a full, independent public inquiry until the pressure forced you to flip-flop, and then you ignored our calls for action, just as you ignored so many warnings issued by so many credible parties about the dangers that were present.

At least take responsibility for doing the right thing from here on in. At least provide some reassurance to Ontario families that you are doing what you can do to make sure their drinking water is safe during the coming summer months. Why not hire 100 inspectors and enforcement officers?

Hon Mr Harris: I think when the leader indicated he wanted a committee of the Legislature with full powers to investigate, I responded immediately. When you flip-flopped and said you didn't want politicians involved and you wouldn't co-operate, I immediately came back and had a judicial inquiry. So I responded very quickly to your first request. When you flip-flopped and refused to participate in the first request, we came forward with the commission of inquiry.

I have been very clear from the beginning that what happened in Walkerton was a tragedy and we wanted to get to the bottom of it. At every opportunity I have gone to great pains to say that now is not the time to assess blame. I blame nobody: no individual, no level of government, no party. I've been very clear on that. I've tried to point out facts relayed to me as I understood them.

But always paramount were, first, the interests of the people of Walkerton and, second, how we get to the bottom of this, and of course, to all the citizens of Ontario, to ensure we have procedures in place to make sure not only that an event like Walkerton never takes place again, but that we restore the confidence and integrity in Ontario's water as being the best in the world.

Mr McGuinty: You talk about restoring confidence and integrity when it comes to Ontario drinking water safety. We had to drag you and your government kicking and screaming into a full independent public inquiry. There were no volunteers on that side of the House, Premier. You didn't want to go there. We had to drag you there.

Yesterday, perhaps we gained the greatest insight of all into where Premier Mike Harris stands when it comes to drinking water safety in Ontario. As Ontario parents who have struggled during the course of the year to earn a few dollars get ready to take the kids out and go to summer camps and trailer parks and stop at service stations along the way, when we raised the issue that those private wells are not subjected to government tests, Mike Harris says, "Let them boil their water"; he says, "Let them bring bottled water." That's what Mike Harris says.

Why are you remaining so stubborn on this point? Why won't you do the right thing? Why won't you hire 100 inspectors and enforcement officers and send them out today to make sure that today our water in Ontario is safe? Why won't you do that?

Hon Mr Harris: I certainly appreciate the question and the advice of the member. I appreciate his interest and concern, which we all have, in this matter. With regard to the first part of the question, when he on behalf of the Liberal Party called for an all-party committee, we responded favourably. We said yes, we would do that and give them full power to investigate. When he flip-flopped and said, "No, I don't want to be involved; I don't want my members involved; I won't co-operate with what I first asked for, Mr Premier," I said, "You know what?

Walkerton is too important." We ignored the flip-flop and said, "Then we'll have a judicial inquiry." Both, I indicated, would have full powers to get to the bottom of the matter, but when you reneged on your initial commitment to the legislative committee, I was happy to respond with the judicial inquiry.

With regard to the specific recommendations, I think they will be helpful to the-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The Premier's time is up.

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have another question for the Premier. It touches another important aspect of public safety. Today we have more proof that when it comes to crime, you are continuing to fail to protect Ontarians. We learned through freedom of information that you have a habit of releasing prisoners from Ontario jails before their time has been served. I'm not talking about early release on parole here. I'm talking about Mike Harris's early release program.

In the last three years 40 prisoners, many of them dangerous, were released when they should still have been in jail-all this, Premier, on your watch. Why are you giving dangerous prisoners in Ontario get-out-of-jail-free cards?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Minister of Correctional Services can respond.

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister of Correctional Services): I'd be happy to respond. In fact, I responded to that question as it was raised by one of our caucus colleagues yesterday in this House. What you're referring to is the measurement of statistics of people who are unlawfully released from jail. That's a statistic we started to monitor after we took government that you failed to do when you were in government and the NDP failed to do when they were in government.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Member for Windsor West, come to order, please.

Sorry for the interruption. Minister of Correctional Services.

Hon Mr Sampson: I say to the Leader of the Opposition, you and your party have been relentlessly against our establishing standards for the correctional services of this ministry. We are going to establish standards that deal with safety, security, effectiveness and efficiency of the corrections system in this province and we'll do it-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The minister will take his seat. We'll just wait.

Supplementary, leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: We already know what the government's standards are when it comes to the Mike Harris early release program. Over the course of the past three years, you let 40 dangerous prisoners out early. Listen to some of the charges under which these prisoners were convicted: aggravated assault, assault causing bodily harm, assault-resisting arrest, assault with a weapon, possession for the purpose of trafficking, robbery, traffic in a controlled narcotic, trafficking in narcotics, unlawfully at large-all of this on your watch. You're the people who are going to be tough on crime. This is tough?

You show them the door and you say: "Have a nice day. Here's a get-out-of-jail-free card." Are those the kinds of standards you bring to Ontario when it comes to protecting Ontarians from crime and criminals?

Hon Mr Sampson: I find the leader's question-

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member will take his seat. Member for Hamilton East, come to order, please. Now you know what I have to put with some days, Mum.

Sorry for the interruption. Minister of Correctional Services.

Hon Mr Sampson: I find the theme of the leader of the official opposition's questioning quite amusing because only two weeks ago the critic for this ministry stood in front of one of our detention centres and declared that the correctional system in this province is a model for other jurisdictions to follow. That came from the mouth of the critic for corrections, the very member of your caucus.

I disagreed with him because we need to change corrections in this province to get tough on crime, to get tough on criminals, and to establish standards of safety and security, effectiveness and efficiency that are accountable to the people of this province. You don't want to do that; we do.

Mr McGuinty: I guess now we have the real definition of "safety and security" for Ontario communities when it comes to prisons and prisoners. You're talking about letting out 40 people on the Mike Harris early release program during the course of the past three years-40 dangerous offenders. One of them was out for-just wait for this-292 days before the police could catch up with him. These aren't releases that have been prompted by judges or early release programs or parole. It's been prompted by your incompetence, pure and simple. That's what we're talking about here.

You may want to joke about this, but think for a moment about the victim of crime, somebody who was assaulted who learns today that the individual who was convicted and sent to jail by a judge for a specified period of time was let out on Mike Harris's early release program and received a get-out-of-jail-free card. That's your plan, that's your program.

So tell us once again, how is it you can stand up with a great sense of pride and assure all of us that you're doing everything you possibly can here in Ontario to protect us from prisoners when you've let out 40 during the course of the last three years on the Mike Harris early release program?

Hon Mr Sampson: I thank the leader of the official opposition for the question because it allows me to stand up yet again and say that we are coming forward with tough new standards that will improve the performance of the corrections system in this province.

You are apparently happy with that. I don't-

Interjections.

The Speaker: We're not going to continue if the members choose to shout across the aisle when the minister is trying to answer. We just can't continue. I can't hear what he's saying, and quite frankly no one can hear what anybody's saying; it's just a dull roar.

Sorry for the interruption. Minister of Correctional Services.

Hon Mr Sampson: I think it's quite clear what the Liberal position on early release is. All we have to do is to look to your federal cousins in Ottawa, who have a release quota for parole. They legally let people out when they shouldn't be out. That's the Liberal position on release from correctional systems in this province and this country.

We categorically deny that. In fact, I'm proud to stand in this place and say parole under this government has dramatically lowered and-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Members should know I'm at the point now of warning people. That's what stage we're at, so members should be prepared for that.

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. I want to ask you about a cabinet document dated March 14 entitled A Cleaner Ontario, a cabinet document that I am told proposed environmental SWAT teams. It asked your government for immediate approval to hire 138 new staff in the Ministry of the Environment, including 60 inspectors, 23 investigators and 45 technical support staff. This was a proposal that I'm told came forward, as I say, on March 14, two months before the Walkerton tragedy, two months before 18 deaths.

Your civil servants were asking you in this cabinet document, I am told, for the approval to hire these additional staff because they were very worried about what was happening in terms of protecting Ontario's environment. Can you tell me, Premier, why this cabinet submission was turned down?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): To the best of my knowledge, you were told wrong.

Mr Hampton: What I've been told is that the document says that the existing Ministry of the Environment inspectors and investigators are fully committed to the current work plan activities. Through these activities, approximately only 10% of current known sources of pollution are inspected annually. Taking staff away from these activities would result in slippages; ie non-enforcement. The option of increasing the existing staff, using the existing structures and delivery approach to get to a level where all sources of pollution are inspected annually, would require in excess of 500 new staff.

The case is made for 500 new inspection staff, but the option that is put forward, the SWAT team option, asks, as I say, for 138 new inspectors, investigators and enforcement staff. As the core business outcome, it cites cleaner water, quality of drinking water, communal water supplies that provide access to safe drinking water to Ontario residents.

Premier, it's a very specific cabinet document. Can you tell me why your government turned down a request by Ministry of the Environment staff two months before Walkerton for the vitally necessary staff to protect our drinking water?

Hon Mr Harris: As with a lot of the opposition information, it's just totally incorrect and not true. We did not turn down any request on the date. I don't recall the cabinet document, but I have a little signal from the Minister of the Environment. He knows nothing about it, I know nothing about it, cabinet knows nothing about it, so obviously somebody made it up.

I can tell you that we have been looking at the requirements for the Ministry of the Environment. We've been looking at the legislation. We've been looking at regulation. I have announced, as you know, that we've appointed Valerie Gibbons to assist with the total management review of the Ministry of the Environment. I have indicated that some have called for 99, some have called for-somebody somewhere, you say, gave you a phony-baloney document and said 128. If 300 people are required, then that's what we will retain and hire.

As I've said, we have given absolute carte blanche to the Minister of the Environment, following the reviews, to hire whatever people it takes and to assign whatever responsibility is required to ensure we have absolutely the safest water, the cleanest air and the cleanest land anywhere in North America.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Final supplementary.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): This document was so specific that it had a proposed cabinet minute attached to it. Premier, you have received warning after warning and you did nothing. Now we know your own cabinet submission told you that the majority of people had no confidence you were protecting their water. It said you needed to hire at least 500 new staff right away in order to increase inspections of all sources of pollution.

It said you are so far behind in environmental protection that even if you had approved and implemented all of the recommendations, your government was still not able to deliver on your commitment that Ontario has the toughest penalty structure in Canada for environmental offences.

This cabinet submission warns you that if you do not do what they recommend, it may draw attention to your perceived poor track record on enforcement and prosecutions. Is that the reason you didn't approve this? If so, Premier, this is no time to worry about your reputation. It is time to repair it. Will you immediately hire the 500 staff recommended by your own Ministry of the Environment?

Hon Mr Harris: As I've already indicated to you, you've got a phony-baloney cabinet document that somebody has given you for whatever purpose. Second, I have already made the commitment that we would hire whatever staff are required, that we would want to do that. I appreciate your advice. I suppose, because you want us to hire 500 immediately, you care five times more about the environment than the Liberals. I don't know how you guys measure success. Clearly we faced a major tragedy in Walkerton. We have promised that we will fully investigate that and address that all across the province.

There was mention of a SWAT team. It was in a Blueprint document we took to the people of Ontario in 1999. We committed to bringing in an environmental SWAT team, so it would be no secret they were looking at that. But the document you have is as phony as a $3 bill.

CASINO NIAGARA

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): To the Attorney General: Two years ago Stanley Beck was appointed to inquire into the circumstances around the awarding of the Niagara Casino project after allegations of serious conflicts of interest were raised throughout the province.

Mr Beck determined there was no conflict because the information he had at the time indicated that the business relationship between Michael French of Coopers and Lybrand, the casino corporation's consultant, and Andrzej Kepinski, who was involved in the winning bid, had ended before the bids were opened.

Earlier today we delivered to your office documents that illustrate clearly that the business relationship between Mr Kepinski and Michael French of Coopers extended far behind the April 30 date. We believe this information should be taken very seriously. We believe, as well, that it should be investigated. What steps are you going to take to get to the bottom of this?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): To the member opposite: I have his letter that was delivered this morning-I just saw it a few minutes ago-in which he says he's "enclosing documents that I believe call into question the conclusion reached by Stanley Beck in his report of August 1998." I have Mr Beck's report here from that time, and as the member knows, among other conclusions, Mr Beck concluded that the Niagara Falls bidding process was detailed, complex, open and fair, and that the selection of Hyatt as the winning bidder was, in his words, "beyond reproach."

I understand that the member opposite feels this information he has enclosed with the letter may be information or documentation that was not available to Mr Beck. I have no idea whether that's so or not, but I will certainly, on behalf of the government, forward these documents to Mr Barbaro, the CEO of the Ontario Casino Corp, so that, as he did before in 1998, he can pass them along to Mr Beck, review them with Mr Beck and report further.

Mr Kormos: Attorney General, the project involved detailed, complex bids. It also involves hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of profits. This matter, as you know, was a scandal in 1998. It involved individuals such as the Latner family, major contributors to the Conservative Party, and Leslie Noble, who acted as a consultant.

The Beck report appeared to put the matter at rest, but the documents we have delivered to you today clearly indicate that Mr Beck did not have this information that indicates the relationship between Michael French of Coopers and Lybrand and Andrzej Kepinski lasted well beyond the April 30 date of opening the bids. We demanded a full public inquiry. It appears that Mr Beck, among other things, may well have been misled-grossly misled-in the course of his investigation and had information purposely withheld from him. This aggravates the scenario far beyond what it was, sir, in 1998.

I submit that you should be asking your deputy minister to refer this matter-the matter of misleading Mr Beck, obstructing his investigation and attempting to conceal a serious interference in what should have been a fair bidding process-to the police for a full investigation. Will you instruct your assistant deputy minister to do that?

Hon Mr Flaherty: What he has sent to me are some documents that he says in his letter to me he believes call into question the conclusion reached by Mr Beck. It seems to me that the reasonable course of action is to pass the documents on, through Mr Barbaro, to Mr Beck and ask Mr Beck to report with respect to whether these documents would alter his conclusion. I would remind the member that his conclusion back in 1998, after he had thoroughly reviewed the matter, was that the selection of Hyatt as the winning bidder was beyond reproach. I will do that on behalf of the government. I'll refer the matter, through Mr Barbaro, back to Mr Beck and ask him to report.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): I have a question for the Premier this afternoon. Yesterday your government made a sudden 180-degree turn in regard to Toronto garbage. It has been your policy, and you have stated on countless occasions, that garbage is a municipal issue. You repealed Bill 163 that restricted the export of waste to other municipalities and disbanded the Interim Waste Authority, returning responsibility for waste to regional government. You've gutted the Environmental Assessment Act to ensure more landfill sites would be approved. You scoped the EA hearings for the Adams mine proposal to facilitate its proposal.

Every action you've taken over the last five years has encouraged Toronto to select the proposal of your friend, Gordon McGuinty, as put forward for the Adams mine. Now, as Toronto nears its final decision and it appears you may not ship garbage north, you threaten to intervene by stopping Toronto from developing its own solution. Why this massive provincial intervention into a municipal matter now? Isn't it because you want Toronto garbage to go to your friend's dumpsite?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I don't know why you would bring up a relative of your leader, who has a proposal in conjunction with a number of other parties before the Legislature, but I assure you the fact that he is related to your leader has no bearing on any decision or any action that our government would ever take.

Let me assure you that we do not plan to involve ourselves in any of the selections of any of the sites. What happened unfortunately, as you will recall, in the 1980s was that municipalities delayed finding decisions to an extent that the Liberal government of the day-it's not because it was Liberal; it had built up over a period of time-had to step in and try and impose solutions. Then the New Democratic Party had to step in and try and impose solutions. We have worked hard to ensure that municipalities understand the rules and commitments and make intelligent, informed long-term decisions.

In the case of Keele Valley, a commitment was made to the residents of Vaughan and York region that 1992 would be the last date-and lots of notice for that to find alternatives-for dumping garbage on the Oak Ridges moraine. We intend to make sure that's the case.

Mr Ramsay: The city of Toronto has a certificate of approval that allows them to finish up with that dumpsite with a certain quantity of garbage, and they are not asking to extend that amount of garbage. This is really a purely political play to enrich your friends and supporters and to save seats in the York region. In fact, you specifically mentioned the Adams mine proposal today in a scrum this morning. I wonder why you happen to have singled out this proposal and to be so interested if it's a municipal issue and the province isn't supposed to intervene.

Let's look at the reasons: First, the Adams mine proposal is the pet project of a good, long-time North Bay friend, as I mentioned, Gordon McGuinty. Second, strong financial supporters of you and your party in Nipissing, in my riding, Timiskaming, and in the 905 seats north of Toronto are partners and shareholders in this proposal. Third, Al Palladini wants Keele Valley closed. Fourth, Ontario Northland Railway, which your government owns, will benefit, as will the economy of North Bay in your riding, where the railway is based.

If you're so concerned about the environment, will you undertake to develop parallel legislation that would protect the groundwater of the Timiskaming farm region, or are you only going to make sure the garbage goes to a Liberal riding and not where it's going to be voting Tory?

Hon Mr Harris: I think the member knows there is a consortium of the Ontario Northland and the CNR and a number of companies, and a proponent who is related to your leader, which has no bearing on any of the decisions involved. We have not been involved in any of the decision-making on environmental approvals or assessment. They've all been handled independently, and we are making no decisions on who the successful proponent would be.

But we do expect municipalities to act responsibly and find long-term solutions. Clearly, a commitment was made five years ago by me personally while campaigning, I believe by your party as well, as I recall, that we would respect that Keele Valley would be closed on time and within the lift constraints and within the capacity. The date of 1992, we understood, was agreed to, certainly by me and by our party. Unlike your party, we keep our word when we make a commitment.

I understand there is a proposal now that talks about the profit that Toronto makes by continuing to dump garbage on the Oak Ridges moraine. We don't think that's in the interest of the environment. We don't think an extension of having six more years of garbage dumped on the Oak Ridges moraine so the city of Toronto can make a profit makes sense. Any other option is-

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

PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington): My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. I took note recently that you announced that the province would be moving forward to allow private universities to operate in Ontario. Clearly, our government believes that this is good news for Ontario, that it will provide more opportunities for Ontarians to learn and will complement our publicly funded institutions. The opposition claims that private universities will have a negative effect on our public institutions. They clearly lack faith in our public system.

In taking this action, our government has expressed confidence in the track record of our public institutions, and we've also increased funding to ensure that they can compete with the best in the world. Minister, constituents in my riding have asked me about this initiative. Could you explain to the House the government's reasoning in allowing private universities to operate in Ontario?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): We are totally committed to excellence and choice for our students in post-secondary programs across this province, no matter where they live. In fact, private degree-granting institutions in Ontario will complement our excellent public post-secondary education system. Our universities right now welcome competition, and these private universities will be funded by private money.

To ensure quality, we will be establishing a quality assessment board, and this board will assess both applied degrees that will be allowed by our colleges and degrees that will be allowed by institutions inside of Ontario and outside of Ontario. In fact, out students are needing these kinds of applied degrees to be competitive in the global economy, they're required for their future work, and we support them fully.

Mrs Elliott: Minister, presently four provinces-British Columbia, Alberta, New Brunswick and Manitoba-allow private universities to operate. From all reports, the quality of their public institutions hasn't been negatively affected-in fact, the opposite. I understand that you have sought the input of a variety of concerned individuals and groups on this issue through a consultation process. Would you please share with my constituents and with members of the House an update on the consultations you have taken regarding establishing private universities.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I'd like to thank the member for her observations. Over the past two months, we've had the opportunity to meet and consult with more than 150 individuals across Ontario representing public universities, colleges, academics, private colleges, student groups, labour, business associations, and the list goes on.

The consultation documents have been posted on the ministry's Web site for public review and feedback, and so far, to this moment, we've received more than 2,500 hits.

We continue to hold one-on-one meetings with groups that have specific interests or recommendations that they want to share with us. Almost 50 organizations have taken the time to prepare written submissions, and we've had encouragement by the large number of people who are totally interested in our students and the opportunities they have for more choice, no matter where they live, right here in Ontario.

We have consulted broadly, we have consulted with those who have asked to be consulted with and we have reached out.

AIR QUALITY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Minister, I attended Toronto's first-ever smog summit this morning. I was there in anticipation of some momentous announcement by you as to direct action that would improve the air quality in this province, and was deeply disappointed, as was virtually everybody else there, that we had no such announcement.

So let me give you a chance today to make such an announcement, which I will applaud if you agree to do right now-guaranteed. Will you now tell the House and the people of Ontario that within three years you will have all coal-fired plants in Ontario converted to natural gas? As you know, at this time they spew forth all kinds of toxic-soup pollution all over Ontario. In this area particularly, you have Nanticoke and Lakeview, which is a given you should be converting right away. I expect a big announcement. Will you now guarantee that you will do that? It's very easy-yes or no-and if you do so, all of Ontario will applaud you.

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): Indeed, I did attend the smog summit today at city hall. It was an excellent event. It was organized by Jack Layton, a Toronto city councillor, and the Toronto Environmental Alliance, as well as others. The federal minister, David Anderson, was there along with another federal minister, David Collenette. I attended as well. It was an excellent event to exchange ideas and to discuss what was happening.

I did announce the executive of the anti-smog action plan that has been put in place. These individuals are going to help ensure that the reductions this government wants to see with respect to smog emissions happen.

I also made an additional statement regarding what Ontario Power Generation has done. Effective January 1 of this year, on smog alert days, they are going to use the Lennox plant before they use the Lakeview plant in Mississauga.

Mr Bradley: I'm hearing-and I say this kindly-the same weasel words and manoeuvring and skating that I heard this morning in his speech.

Interjections.

Mr Bradley: Well, they are weasel words, because what you're saying is that you're not prepared to commit today to convert those coal-fired plants to gas, which is the best thing you could possibly do.

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): Why didn't you do it when you were the government?

Mr Bradley: I hear the Minister of Transportation, so I have a second proposal for you as the Minister of the Environment. Your Minister of Transportation, along with the Treasurer, took all the money away from public transit, all that money that was helping GO Transit and municipalities across Ontario. You took it all away. As Minister of the Environment, this is your chance to make a big announcement now.

Will you announce, on behalf of the government, that as Minister of the Environment you will recommend that the government return the funding that was in public transit before, that you will massively invest in public transit, so we have an alternative and can reduce smog in this province?

Never mind Stockwell and Clement; they're in enough trouble now. Just you.

Hon Mr Newman: First off, if he's going to talk about weasel words, he shouldn't be talking about what happens in his caucus meetings.

First and foremost, I think it's important to keep in mind that this government gave $829 million to the city of Toronto, to the Toronto Transit Commission, for the Sheppard subway. That's a public transit project.

You should also know that today I indicated we were successful in lobbying the federal government to agree to obtain a commitment from the United States to reduce emissions. We've said, in fact, that over 50% of the smog that comes into Ontario originates in the United States, and there are parts of Ontario where 90% of the smog originates in the United States.

LANDFILL

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. I was very interested in your answer yesterday about the Keele Valley landfill. I've been reading about the city of Toronto's reaction to your announcement, and, quite frankly, it's obvious to me that the city's interests are strictly financial and they don't take into account the interests of the citizens of Vaughan.

In light of all the issues facing your ministry right now, why is resolving the Keele Valley landfill site such a high priority?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): I'd like to thank the member for Scarborough East for the question. We indeed made a commitment in 1995 to the residents of Vaughan, and we intend to honour that commitment. All along, we have done what we said we would do.

Unfortunately, the city of Toronto has stalled and delayed when it comes to this issue. We know that the city has some tough decisions to make. They have the proposals on the table, and we would encourage them to seriously look at long-term solutions to this problem, as they said they would do over five years ago.

Mr Gilchrist: Minister, we heard from the former Minister of the Environment opposite comments such as "weasel words" and "politicking." If I've seen anything that falls into that category, it's their johnny-come-lately defence of the Oak Ridges moraine. They didn't know where the moraine was before last-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. I say to members on both sides, it's not helpful using words like that. If I have to get up, I will. All members are honourable. We don't need to start getting into name-calling on top of everything else. We can get our points across using language that everybody understands. We're all honourable members here. Quite frankly, as you know, that's one of the reasons we refer to people by their ridings, because you come here to represent the people. When we throw words around here, it is a reflection on the people of that riding as well, so I would encourage members on all sides to think about the language they use.

The member for Scarborough East.

Mr Gilchrist: I'm sorry if using that word when the member for St Catharines was not asked to withdraw it was inappropriate. But I find it ironic that the city of Toronto on the one hand claims it wants to protect the moraine from development-and, to their credit, gave some money to its defence-but then, on the other hand, want to continue collecting a profit for another four years by dumping tonnes and tonnes of garbage on the very same land. They can't have it both ways.

Minister, what is your advice to the city of Toronto councillors who are considering the issue of the Keele Valley landfill and further dumping on the Oak Ridges moraine?

Hon Mr Newman: Garbage is indeed a global problem. If we want our children to have a planet that is worth inheriting, we have to make sure that we use the three Rs: reuse, reduce and recycle. Each of us must take some responsibility.

The Keele Valley landfill site sits on the Oak Ridges moraine and close to the sensitive headwaters of the Rouge River. This is not only a serious environmental issue; it's a quality-of-life issue. I heard today that children can't play in their schoolyards for fear of being swarmed by seagulls, and this is wrong. Closing the dump is the right thing to do, and we hope the city of Toronto will indeed do the right thing, but if not, we're prepared to look at other options.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, Gillian Hadley, a mother of three, was murdered in her Pickering home by her estranged husband. Her death marks the third time this year in the GTA that a woman has died at the hands of her violent partner-the third time that we know of.

Gillian Hadley's estranged husband made no secret that his wife's life was at risk. He had been charged twice this year with assaulting her. He had been released twice on conditions that were supposed to prevent him from stepping a foot near Gillian Hadley. But bail conditions alone were clearly not enough to prevent this tragedy.

Your government calls regularly for tighter restrictions on parole, and yet this person was released twice, after assaulting her twice and violating conditions. He was released again, and the results are tragic.

Let me ask you, how on earth in Mike Harris's Ontario did Gillian Hadley's estranged husband ever manage to get bail a second time?

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Premier?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Attorney General can respond.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The events yesterday in Pickering are tragic. They are within the region that I and other members on this side of the House represent-very sad circumstances, obviously, in what we know about what transpired yesterday. Our condolences go to the family and friends affected by this tragedy.

The member opposite is absolutely right: Domestic violence is a very serious crime and is not tolerated in Ontario. We've taken a leadership role as a government with respect to dealing with domestic violence, in particular by the expansion of domestic violence courts in Ontario. We moved from eight to 16, and in the most recent budget to 24.

That's not just creating another type of court; that's creating a structure where people who have difficulty controlling their anger and their reaction to domestic discord can be moved through the system in co-operation with the social service agencies, with specialized crown attorneys, with specialized court staff, with experienced judges so that the type of tragedy that apparently occurred yesterday can be avoided.

Ms Lankin: Minister, these two people were already in your system. The estranged husband was already in anger management. I'm telling you he was charged with assault in January and released on conditions to stay away from her. He was charged again in February with assault and with violating those conditions. He was released again on bail with more conditions. All of your rhetoric about defending victims meant nothing to Gillian Hadley.

Why is it that a violent offender who violates those conditions to stay away from his victim gets a second chance in this province? There should be no second chance. What are you going to do make sure there are no second chances for these violent partners to go out and kill?

Hon Mr Flaherty: The bail hearings the member refers to are a matter with respect to which I can comment as Attorney General, since the agents of the Attorney General, the crown prosecutors, represent the interests of the people of Ontario and often speak for victims at those hearings. Indeed, in these circumstances, I'm told through the local crown attorney, on the second hearing that took place the crown prosecutor opposed bail being granted. Those decisions, as the member opposite should know, are then made by the presiding judge, not by the crown.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Mr Speaker, my question is to the Premier and I wonder if a page would take that to the Premier. Today, as you know, is National Aboriginal Day. It has been almost five years since the shooting death of Dudley George of our First Nations at Ipperwash Provincial Park. That entire event was tragic and a black eye for Ontario. Several extremely serious questions were raised, including the role of you and your cabinet.

The only way to find out what really happened at Ipperwash is with a full public inquiry. We have examined carefully the terms of reference you gave Justice O'Connor for the Walkerton inquiry. They provide an appropriate model for an Ipperwash inquiry. We have sent those proposals to you right now. The question is, now that you have determined how the Walkerton public inquiry can proceed and not interfere with matters before the court and protect matters before the court, will you today finally agree to a full public inquiry on Ipperwash, using very similar terms to the Walkerton inquiry?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I didn't get a lot of notice of this, but I'm happy to send these to the Attorney General. If and when all court actions are disposed of, and if and when at that point in time it's deemed appropriate, and if and when a judicial inquiry is the best way to proceed, then I appreciate your advice.

Mr Phillips: The Walkerton terms of reference, Premier, provide for protection for people in matters before the court. It's spelled out very clearly. I assume that the Walkerton inquiry will continue to proceed if criminal charges are laid. You have spelled out in detail how an inquiry can proceed.

The matters at Ipperwash are serious and, frankly, involve you and your cabinet in very serious allegations, with much public evidence of inappropriate behaviour. The only way Ontario will get a full public explanation of this is with an inquiry. You determined the terms of reference at Walkerton. We've examined them. They provide a model, Premier.

If you want to do the right thing, the decent thing and remove this black eye from Ontario, you will today commit to holding a public inquiry so we can finally get the truth about this sad episode at Ipperwash. Will you agree, using the very terms that you proposed at Walkerton, to commit today to a full public inquiry at Ipperwash?

Hon Mr Harris: I appreciate the advice. If at the time it's appropriate, I'd be happy to pass it to the Attorney General.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): In the terms of reference in the O'Connor inquiry, I think the honourable member must be referring to the term that says, "The commission, in the conduct of its inquiry, shall ensure that it does not interfere with any ongoing criminal investigation or criminal proceedings, if any, relating to these matters." That doesn't tell the commissioner how to make a decisions about that, if and when that issue comes up in the O'Connor inquiry.

The reality is that there are no criminal proceedings with respect to Walkerton. There is a serious criminal proceeding en route to the Supreme Court of Canada from the Ontario Court of Appeal now in the Ipperwash situation, which is a fundamental difference, which I would think the member opposite would appreciate.

STROKE STRATEGY

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of Health. As you're aware, strokes are one of the leading causes of death and long-term disability in Canada. In fact, the incidence of stroke is expected to rise by more than 30%-if I can interrupt the member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Minister, constituents in my riding are quite interested in your recent announcement regarding the development of a provincial stroke care strategy. How will this strategy prevent and treat the incidence of strokes? Is there a public education component to the strategy to help raise awareness of deadly stroke symptoms?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Yes. On Monday this week we did release the information regarding a stroke strategy for the province of Ontario. Our government is committing $30 million to ensure that the incidence of stroke in our province does decrease. As the member has indicated, it is the third leading cause of death and it is the leading cause of disability in Canada. Our strategy will ensure that we are able to provide a continuum of care.

For a long time, there has been certainly a concentration on rehabilitation. But we know today, and the medical community has indicated, that we also need to take a look at what we can do in the way of prevention. There are significant resources and information that can be made available. A very large component of the strategy will be to raise the public awareness, because people today don't have knowledge of the symptoms. We will be making this information available.

As I say, it is anticipated over the next five years that we'll be leading the world as far as the strategy is concerned. We have the potential to save 9,900 lives.

Mr Johnson: I think the aim of the program is to help those 8,000, and prevention seems to me to be a lot better than a cure.

When can we expect the stroke care strategy to be implemented, and what other groups and agencies is the ministry working with in the development and implementation of the strategy?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The working group that prepared the report for us was made up of many stakeholders throughout the province of Ontario. In fact, the report wouldn't be at the point it's at today without the type of collaboration and partnership that we experienced. In particular, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of this province has worked very hard and very collaboratively with the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.

Over the course of the summer, we will be identifying the implementation plan as to how we're going to follow through on all of the recommendations in order to ensure that no matter where you live in Ontario, you will have access to a regional centre, you will have access to a continuum of care and we will be able to treat stroke victims as quickly as possible.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. The Swaru incinerator in my riding of Hamilton East last year produced dioxin emissions six times higher than allowed under current provincial standards. The level of dioxins out of the incinerator are about 15 years out of date. Dioxins are associated with cancer and other serious health effects.

Your ministry has been requested a number of times to review this by area residents and the region has been asked to review this matter by area residents. We're now at a critical situation where residents in the area are fearful, they're afraid. In view of what has happened in Walkerton, they fear for their health and their safety. In view of the fact that we know dioxins cause dangerous health effects, including cancer.

Minister, I'm going to ask you very clearly: What steps are you taking today to ensure that the Swaru incinerator in Hamilton-with levels that are now 15 years out of date and emissions that are six times higher than allowed under your regulations-is brought into line with provincial standards?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): I can assure the honourable member it's an issue that is taken seriously. We want to ensure that provincial standards are adhered to in this province, whether it be for water, for air, for incinerators or land. It is, indeed, a serious issue and the ministry will be looking at that.

Mr Agostino: It's obvious you're totally clueless as to the problem. You were asked a month ago, under the Environmental Bill of Rights, to ask for a provincial review into Swaru. You stand here today and give me some standard answer that's in your book there, not having a clue what Swaru is all about. You were asked a month ago for a review. You have not yet given a response.

The emissions are six times higher than allowed under your own provincial regulations. That is a danger to people's health. Swaru is located in the middle of a residential neighbourhood. It's in the east end of Hamilton. Unfortunately for you, if it was one of your Tory-held 905 ridings, maybe you would act. But the reality is that those people are affected every day by those emissions.

You've been asked to act, and you haven't. You were asked for a provincial review under the Environmental Bill of Rights. You have not responded. Will you stand up today and commit to a provincial review of the Swaru incinerator under the Environmental Bill of Rights? You have the power to do it. You have the power to stand up now and say yes. Will you do that to ensure the health and safety of the people living in the east end of Hamilton?

Hon Mr Newman: That's an absolutely ridiculous statement from the member opposite. To somehow imply that the riding someone represents has a role in decisions being made is absolutely ludicrous. We take the protection of the environment in this province very seriously, whether it be the water, the air or the land. It also includes incinerators. These are issues that are very important to this government and to me as minister.

ST CLAIR PARKWAY COMMISSION

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of Tourism. As you are aware, we have a situation in the riding of Lambton-Kent-Middlesex which has been ongoing for eight or nine years between the former city of Chatham and the St Clair Parkway Commission whereby the former city of Chatham refuses to pay its levy to the St Clair Parkway Commission.

You stood in the House three weeks ago and you stated that you were very close to having this problem resolved regarding the issue between the now city of Chatham-Kent and the St Clair Parkway Commission. Could you please give us an update as to where the negotiations are?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Tourism): I'd like to thank my colleague and to acknowledge his leadership as the local member in trying to resolve this issue, which has gone on for almost nine years. He has been very helpful in fine-tuning the issues and making sure that we came to an equitable and fair resolution between the two municipalities and the parks commission.

I'm pleased to report that an agreement in principle has been reached, that both municipalities have agreed, that Chatham-Kent has agreed to pay its back levies to the taxpayers and to the commission. The agreement calls in the future to transfer Marine Park and McDonald Park to the community of Chatham-Kent. We can assure all the tourists and residents in the area that services will not be disrupted this summer.

I'll also indicate a promise I made that, because of the national and provincial historical significance of Uncle Tom's Cabin, this property would not transfer out of our ministry's responsibility.

Mr Beaubien: Thank you, Minister. I would like to congratulate you for finally reaching a conclusion to this problem that's been ongoing for a number of years-under different governments, may I add. With regard to the solution you've reached with the St Clair Parkway Commission and the Chatham-Kent municipality, where do you see the role of your ministry and the St Clair Parkway in the future?

Hon Mr Jackson: As you know, our Premier committed in the most recent budget to an expansion of marketing dollars for tourism in the province of Ontario. We recognize that the third-strongest industry in the Chatham-Kent area is tourism and our ministry is going to be increasing its marketing activities in this area. We're also bringing together all the parties to expand the St Clair Parkway Commission to look at the natural beauty of the south shore of Lake Huron all the way through to Grand Bend, and to look at expanding it under a new Bluewater parks commission.

Our government has recently committed some additional dollars to study RV parks development to bring more Americans into this area, because Sarnia is one of the most important gateways to Ontario for our American visitors. It's an opportunity, and we believe that with the full support of the community of Sarnia-Lambton and with the local member's vision and support, we will see a significant increase in tourism in this part of Ontario.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to revert back to ministerial statements so that the Minister of Labour can make a statement with respect to the future of Bill 69.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard a no.

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the health restructuring commission has slated St Joseph's Hospital in Brant to close; and

"Whereas this decision does not reflect the long-term health care interests of Brant;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to reverse the decision of the health restructuring commission as follows:

"We request that St Joseph's Hospital, Brantford, be kept open for the use and in the best interests of the citizens of Brantford and area."

I sign my name to this petition.

SAFE DRINKING WATER LEGISLATION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): I have more petitions supporting my private member's bill on the safe water act. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

"Whereas Mike Harris and the government of Ontario have failed to protect the quality of drinking water in Ontario; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and the government of Ontario have failed to provide the necessary financial resources to the Ministry of the Environment; and

"Whereas the policies of Mike Harris and the government of Ontario have endangered the environment and the health of the citizens of Ontario;

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

"

(1) Immediately restore adequate funding and staffing to the Ministry of the Environment;

"

(2) Immediately pass into law Bill 96, the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2000."

I completely agree with this petition and will affix my signature.

KARLA HOMOLKA

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): It's again a pleasure to introduce an ongoing petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"That the government of Ontario will:

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

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

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

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

I'm happy to affix my name.

HUNTING IN WILDERNESS PARKS

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): There's great concern about the Ministry of Natural Resources' possible attempt to allow hunting in wilderness parks in this province, which we strongly oppose, and I want to read a petition related to this.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Minister of Natural Resources has confirmed that the province is considering allowing hunting in Ontario's wilderness parks, including Quetico, Killarney, Wabakimi and Woodland Caribou;

"Whereas the provincial government made no mention of opening up wilderness parks to hunting when it came up with the Ontario Living Legacy policy last year for a vast area of publicly owned land across northern Ontario;

"Whereas the province's wilderness parks were originally established to be sanctuaries where the forces of nature would be permitted to function freely and where visitors could travel by non-mechanized means and experience solitude, challenge and personal enjoyment of that protected area; and

"Whereas opening wilderness parks to hunters undermines the principles the parks were established to fulfill, threatens animals and exposes the public to risk;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that the Ministry of Natural Resources renew and reconfirm its ban on hunting in all of Ontario's wilderness parks."

I'm pleased to sign my petition. I'll give it to Riley, who's actually taller than me. I'm proud to sign this petition.

CHILD POVERTY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I am extremely proud today to present petitions organized by the West Hamilton Interfaith Committee on Child Poverty, a dedicated group of community activists who care about the growing number of children in Ontario who are falling into poverty. The petition reads as follows:

"Petition to eradicate the hunger of poor children.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned citizens of Hamilton and the surrounding communities, beg leave to petition the government of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the federal government signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and passed a resolution to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000; and

"Whereas at the first ministers' meeting in June 1996 the Prime Minister and Premiers made tackling child poverty a collective priority; and

"Whereas Campaign 2000 records the province of Ontario as having the highest increase-116%-in child poverty since Canada's House of Commons vowed unanimously in November 1989 to eliminate child poverty;

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

"That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario take immediate steps to eradicate the hunger of poor children by working vigorously with the federal government to reduce the poverty rate among Ontario's children and to follow and implement the recommendations of the Early Years study, commissioned by the Ontario government in the spring of 1998."

I am proud to add my name to those of these Hamilton petitioners in the fight against child poverty.

LORD'S PRAYER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have countless petitions with hundreds of signatures, mostly from the constituency of Algoma-Manitoulin.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the northern health travel grant was introduced in 1987 in recognition of the fact that northern Ontario residents are often forced to receive treatment outside their own communities because of the lack of available services; and

"Whereas the Ontario government acknowledged that the costs associated with that travel should not be fully borne by those residents and therefore that financial support should be provided by the Ontario government through the travel grant program; and

"Whereas travel, accommodation and other costs have escalated sharply since the program was first put in place, particularly in the area of air travel; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has provided funds so that southern Ontario patients needing care at the Northwestern Ontario Cancer Centre have all their expenses paid while receiving treatment in the north which creates a double standard for health care delivery in the province; and

"Whereas northern Ontario residents should not receive a different level of health care nor be discriminated against because of their geographical locations;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to acknowledge the unfairness and inadequacy of the northern health travel grant and commit to a review of the program with a goal of providing 100% funding of the travel costs for residents needing care outside their communities until such time as that care is available in our communities."

I fully support this petition.

STUDDED TIRES

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I have another 350 names to add to a petition that was introduced by my colleague from Sudbury on the issue of studded tires. He has also introduced a private member's bill on this subject.

"Whereas personal safety on winter roadways would be greatly increased; and

"Whereas improved technology on studded tires has proven in other countries and provinces they will not damage the roadways-in Sweden, 80% of the population has been using the new softer studs with no damage to their roads and has cut accidents by half; and

"Whereas studded tires are used in many northern countries and all other provinces in Canada; and

"Whereas studies have proven that studded tires outperform all-seasonal and winter tires in manoeuvrability and braking on ice and snow-packed roads; and

"Whereas studded tires can save lives-"

The following petition is presented to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, asking the government to rescind the law banning studded tires. As I said before, I have over 350 names on this petition, all people from Sault Ste Marie, and I add my name.

SUPPORT PROGRAM

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I have a petition signed by five people. It calls on the government of Ontario to increase the allowances paid to disabled persons.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): "Whereas the Kinsmen/JS MacDonald school is slated for closure,

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

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

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

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

I have also signed the petition.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the northern health travel grant was introduced in 1987 in recognition of the fact that northern Ontario residents are often forced to receive treatment outside their own communities because of the lack of available services; and

"Whereas the Ontario government acknowledged that the costs associated with that travel should not be fully borne by those residents and therefore that financial support should be provided by the Ontario government through the travel grant program; and

"Whereas travel, accommodation and other costs have escalated sharply since the program was first put in place, particularly in the area of air travel; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has provided funds so that southern Ontario patients needing care at the Northwestern Ontario Cancer Centre have all their expenses paid while receiving treatment in the north which creates a double standard for health care delivery in the province; and

"Whereas northern Ontario residents should not receive a different level of health care nor be discriminated against because of their geographical locations;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to acknowledge the unfairness and inadequacy of the northern health travel grant program and commit to a review of the program with a goal of providing 100% funding of the travel costs for residents needing care outside their communities until such time as that care is available in our communities."

Once again I affix my signature in agreement with 97 further constituents who add their names to this petition.

ONTARIO WORKS

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas

section 12 of the Ontario Works Act requires those who are homeowners and are on assistance for 12 continuous months to consent to Ontario Works having a lien against their property;

"Whereas Ontario Works Act provisions are not flexible to adapt to the conditions of the rural work environment;

"Whereas the employment rate in rural areas is significantly higher than those of urban areas (north Hastings has an unemployment rate 17%);

"Whereas the labour/work market in rural Ontario is often seasonal, lacks benefit coverage and the part-time work rate is significantly higher than urban settings (north Hastings is 52%);

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to:

"Repeal

section 12 of the Ontario Works Act; and

"Adapt the regulations under the Ontario Works Act to provide flexibility and support for the current Ontario rural labour market realities."

I affix my name very happily to this petition.

HUNTING IN WILDERNESS PARKS

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Natural Resources is proposing that Ontario's Living Legacy proposed land use strategy permit hunting in designated wilderness parks which are currently used for vacationing and recreation for the general public; and

"Whereas we believe this change in policy would endanger the serenity, ecology and remoteness of these existing wilderness parks. The Legislative Assembly does not have to wait until one innocent vacationer is shot in error until reconsidering the danger of allowing hunters into our precious wilderness parks;

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

"To continue the prohibition of hunting in wilderness parks in order to ensure the preservation of safety, tranquility and environmental well-being."

I will affix my signature to this petition.

DURHAM COLLEGE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Just under the wire, as usual.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we request the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support Durham College in their bid for university status;

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

"We feel for the economic well-being of Durham region a university is necessary and we strongly support of the bid by Durham College to achieve this status in the immediate future."

This is submitted by Frank Hoar, secretary for the Newcastle Lions. I'm pleased to sign and support this petition.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Today during reports by committees, a report was presented by the Chair of the standing committee on estimates relating to an appeal to the Speaker of a ruling made by the Chair of that committee.

I have carefully reviewed the report and the transcript of the committee meeting at which the appeal of the Chair's ruling arose.

As I understand the events in the committee, the member for Durham, Mr O'Toole, sought to raise a point of order with respect to an occurrence in the estimates committee at a previous meeting, June 13. The Chair of the committee declined to hear the point of order, presumably on the grounds that Mr O'Toole's point of order was not raised in a timely manner since it related to a previous meeting. The Chair was not explicit that this was the reason, and I have to infer this from the general discussion that took place.

The issue of timeliness is important with respect to points of order. However, the matter raised by the member for Durham related to his view that a practice decided upon by the Chair at the June 13 meeting was continuing in yesterday's meeting. Therefore, the member for Durham did raise his point of order in reference to the proceedings of the committee actually in progress.

In any event, the core of the appeal as I see it centres around the civil servants from various ministries being called upon to assist in answering questions posed during consideration of a ministry's estimates. It is a long-standing practice of our estimates committee that ministry staff do attend committee meetings and are permitted, at the request of the respective minister, to answer technical and non-policy-related questions. Indeed, this specific practice was observed at yesterday's meeting. A point of clarification, however, may be helpful.

At the June 13 meeting, the issue of the ministry staff responding to questions also arose. At this meeting, the first the committee held to consider the estimates of the Ministry of the Environment, the first order of business was for the minister and the critics of the two opposition parties to make their 30-minute opening statements, followed by a 30-minute reply afforded to the minister. This process is for the mentioned members to make statements; it does not contemplate that this time is to be used to question the minister or ministry staff.

If this does happen, I see no reason for the member asking the question in this period to expect or to require that answers will be given. It is a statement process, not a question-and-answer process.

Yesterday's meeting saw the committee engaged in the actual consideration of the votes and items of the environment ministry estimates. This is a much more open process, a process of inquiry. It clearly involves an ongoing exchange between the committee members and the minister's accountability for his or her ministry's estimates. As I said earlier, it is a well-established practice that ministry staff may assist the minister by answering some of those technical or non-policy questions at the minister's request.

The role of the Chair comes in here: The Chair must ensure not only that there's an opportunity for oral questions to be offered and asked by the committee, but also that the answers are to be on topic and do not unduly consume the time of the committee. However, this is the Chair's role, who is presiding over the committee, and not the role of other members of the committee. The member whose question is being answered may not agree that the response is what he or she wishes to hear, but the goodwill nature of the response from ministry staff must be taken at face value.

Where the Chair feels the dis cussion has reached an unproductive point or the time being taken is unduly wasteful of the time apportioned to a particular member, the Chair must interrupt and move the discussion along in the interest of fairness to all members of the committee. This, however, is a function of the Chair's duty to maintain order and secure the advancement of the committee's business. It is not for the Chair to do so based on his or her own views about the matter being discussed.

For the most part, however, the Chair should need to inject him- or herself into the proceedings of a committee only relatively rarely. The Chair should be an impartial, largely silent observer of the committee's proceedings who has no voice except in the case of disorder or when an imbalance in or an infringement of the rights of any member, whether of the minority or of the majority, is apparent.

I therefore concur that the committee's demonstrated and observed practice of permitting ministry staff to answer questions raised by committee members is correct.

I thank all of the members for their participation in this report by the committee.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

Mr Turnbull moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 91,

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

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Mr Turnbull has moved second reading of Bill 91.

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): I believe we have unanimous consent to divide the time equally among the three caucuses and to forgo any questions and comments.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Agreed? It is agreed.

Hon Mr Turnbull: I will be dividing my time with the members for London-Fanshawe, Guelph-Wellington-

The Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Minister. I wanted to clarify for the clerks at the table what the agreement was that we just agreed to.

Hon Mr Turnbull: I believe that the time will be equally divided among the three caucuses and that we will forgo questions and comments.

The Deputy Speaker: The time is split evenly till 6 o'clock. It is agreed. Thanks very much. Sorry to interrupt, but I did want to clarify it.

Hon Mr Turnbull: Do you want me to point out again the people with whom I will be dividing the time? The members for London-Fanshawe, Guelph-Wellington, Northumberland and Durham.

It's my pleasure to lead off the debate on Bill 91, the Highway Traffic Amendment Act. Bill 91 will require the mandatory reporting or branding of severely damaged vehicles. This legislation is an important step in protecting consumers against auto theft and vehicle fraud. I believe it will contribute to improved road safety in Ontario as well.

Consider the following facts: Each year about 90,000 vehicles are written off in Ontario by insurance companies. Many of these vehicles find their way back on to Ontario roads through the black market. Buyers are unaware of their new vehicle, or supposedly new vehicle, being a danger to themselves and their families or others on the road.

Auto fraud and theft impact everyone who owns a vehicle and drives on our roads, through higher insurance premiums and unsafe vehicles on our roads. It's important to understand how serious this problem is. In 1998, our government established the stolen and salvaged vehicle program to deter automobile vehicle registration fraud and vehicle theft. Since the program's inception just two years ago, more than 4,600 vehicles have been branded as stolen. According to Ontario's Crime Control Commission, vehicle theft has increased by 79% in the past 12 years in Ontario, and as of 1998, 50,000 vehicles were unrecovered in Ontario. This quite simply is unacceptable.

The amendments I'm introducing will require the mandatory reporting or branding of severely damaged vehicles. Branding involves putting vehicle status information on registration documents and other information products, such as vehicle abstracts and used vehicle information packages.

This new legislation clearly makes vehicle owners accountable for the condition of their vehicles. With this Legislature's approval, the proposed legislation will enable the following:

-A Highway Traffic Act amendment to make it more difficult for stolen vehicles to be re-registered using information and parts from written-off vehicles.

-The registrar of motor vehicles will be able to amend the official records and to reissue permits classifying vehicles as irreparable and salvage.

-Salvage vehicles can be reclassified as rebuilt and fit to be driven, provided the vehicle has been repaired and the chassis, engine and doors have been inspected and are in working order.

-The ability for the vehicle's history to be clearly identified, effectively alerting purchasers of its status and history.

-New regulation-making powers to deal with items such as the question of who is required to report severely damaged vehicles.

-Further development of regulations which will put this program into effect.

Our government made safer communities an election commitment, and safe roads are an important part of safer communities. Bill 91 builds on our track record for strengthening road user safety, a track record that includes the most stringent truck safety laws in the whole of North America; the action plan for safer roads; the Ontario Advisory Group on Safe Driving.

These initiatives are working. Ontario's roads are now the fourth-safest in the whole of North America. Road fatalities are at their lowest level since 1950. While these are encouraging statistics, I've said it many times before, we can and we simply must do better. I have frequently articulated my goal of making Ontario's roads the safest in the whole of North America. Bill 91 will bring us even closer to this goal by taking irreparable, salvaged or stolen vehicles off our streets.

Support for this initiative is strong. The Ontario Crime Control Commission has indicated that mandatory branding is an effective tool in the campaign against auto theft and fraud. The insurance industry, under the existing voluntary program, has provided extensive support.

In preparation for this legislation, we've also worked with a wide variety of stakeholders, including the enforcement community, collision repair industry, vehicle sales industry and auto recyclers. These groups are also highly supportive of this program.

Once again, I'd like to thank the members for Thunder Bay-Superior North and Timmins-James Bay for their support of this legislation. I hope we can work together on future initiatives that will further crack down on crime in our communities.

All interested parties have told me that this program must be mandatory to be truly effective in promoting road-user safety and consumer protection.

Our government has made a commitment to introduce tough measures that will tackle crime and build safer roads and communities for our families. This is one more initiative introduced by our government that supports law enforcement officials in their fight against crime.

I invite all members to join me in strengthening consumer protection and making Ontario roads even safer.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): I was listening carefully to what the minister said, and I'll just go back to my time as a member co-chair of the Ontario Crime Control Commission with the member for Cambridge, Gerry Martiniuk.

When I first was appointed to the commission in July 1999, instructions had been left with the then Solicitor General, the Honourable Bob Runciman, that the Ontario Crime Control Commission look at ways to reduce automobile theft in the province. The reason was that our automobile thefts had increased double digits over the past several years-as you've heard, they increased over the last 12 years by 79%-to the point where, in 1998, approximately 168,000 vehicles were stolen in Canada, 50,000 of those in Ontario.

What was very disturbing was the number of unrecovered stolen vehicles in Ontario-approximately 15,000 per year. At one time, we had a recovery rate of stolen vehicles of approximately 90%. That recovery rate has, all of a sudden, fallen to approximately 65%. The unrecovered rate of automobile theft is due to crime organizations-people in this for profit. Essentially three things happen to a stolen automobile:

The first is that it's exported. We often hear about high-end vehicles that are exported abroad through certain initiatives to get them out of the country.

The second thing that can happen to a stolen automobile is a vehicle identification number switch. That is simply purchasing a vehicle that has been written off-that has absolutely no hope of ever being repaired-and then stealing the exact same automobile and perhaps switching the vehicle identification number, and all you essentially buy is the paperwork, and then going in to the Ministry of Transportation, saying that somehow you've done an incredible repair job and re-register that vehicle. That's the second thing that can happen to stolen, unrecovered vehicles.

The third thing is that they're chopped for parts and sold independently.

Although stolen automobiles are not the only unrecovered portion, there's still that 60% or 65% that are recovered that we know are predominantly youth joyriding or using stolen vehicles to commit crimes such as break and enter and so on. Those are still of enormous concern to us, because it's often that 60 to 65% that are involved in police pursuits and so on that we still need to continue to deal with.

This legislation, aside from reducing automobile theft based on vehicle identification number switches, will provide better consumer protection in many regards, one being that in Ontario at the present time, a person does not know if he or she has purchased a vehicle that has been rebuilt. There's nothing in the paperwork, on a voluntary basis, that would enable one to figure out for sure that a consumer has purchased a vehicle that had been written off by an insurance company and no standards to go with that.

With this present legislation, when a vehicle is deemed to be irreparable, it can never again be fixed in this province and can only be sold as salvage, obviously, to be used for whatever parts it can be used for.

When a vehicle is branded as salvage, it is certainly one of those that is definitely not irreparable and yet requires work to be rebuilt. So at some point it can be moved up to a rebuilt category as long as it meets all of the safety features that one would expect a normal vehicle to meet.

When we talk about consumer protection, a person who buys a vehicle that has been branded as rebuilt, that information will be readily available on the purchaser's package, purchased from the Ministry of Transportation. So a consumer would clearly know that he or she is purchasing a vehicle that has been rebuilt and therefore knows any risks that might be associated with purchasing a vehicle that has been rebuilt. So that's the other component of consumer protection.

But I want to move to another part. Auto recyclers, many in my riding that I've spoken to, are in a situation where they've actually had to purchase irreparable and salvaged vehicles from the United States. The simple reason is because the vehicle identification numbers at our auctions are going for too much money. Why are they going for too much money? Is it because the components of those irreparable vehicles are that valuable? Well, in fact, no, they're not.

The reason they're going for more money than they are worth is because people are out purchasing vehicle identification numbers because they know that after they purchase that vehicle identification number they can go out and steal the exact same make and model of vehicle and quite simply, through no repair, just put the VIN on.

When the minister made this announcement at metro police headquarters compound, I was interested that there were several vehicles in the lot. At one time, criminals actually used to take some pride in when they switched vehicle identification numbers. They used to actually take out the whole dashboard and replace it, even if it had not been damaged in any way. But I saw a couple where the vehicle identification number had actually been switched.

I mean, there are some old criminals around-and I see the judge here-in this province who would be embarrassed by the quality of work that actually had gone into switching the vehicle identification numbers, the quality level. That's sad, because what that tells us in fact is that it is so easy in this province that even criminals are actually having no pride when they do this, make no attempt to re-stamp secondary numbers, make no attempt to remove the windshield so that the vehicle identification number is not damaged when they're placing it on the stolen vehicle.

I think that's certainly an alert for many of us, that it has become so easy in Ontario to re-register a new vehicle identification number that certainly no thought by criminals or even concern about being caught is there.

This legislation will certainly help in the component of stolen vehicles, which is estimated to be a large part of that 35% that's not recovered. A large part of that 35% is suspected to be vehicle identification number switches through stolen vehicles. So we look forward, through this legislation, to reducing that portion of automobile thefts out of the 15,000 a year that are not recovered. We certainly suspect that many numbers are being switched and are being sold right across this province.

When we talk about consumer protection, I already spoke a minute ago about vehicles that are legitimately repaired and sold. People will know how they are branded. But there's a second component of consumer protection here that is very important. We've heard many stories in the media and elsewhere of someone, an innocent victim, who has purchased a vehicle and then, at some time later, has found that that vehicle is in fact stolen and they're out the monetary value of that vehicle, with no compensation. We certainly need to protect consumers the best we can by not allowing them to be able to purchase stolen vehicles.

In the past, there was really no paperwork that would allow you to think that you had purchased a stolen vehicle or a rebuilt vehicle. Now the vehicle purchase package or seller's package, whatever you may call it, will clearly outline the history of that vehicle, with the various owners and so on.

Again, in the past, occasionally a vehicle had switched names to a wrecking yard. If they had actually done the switch, a trained person could look and say that in such a year this vehicle was owned by a wrecking yard. It may give them a clue that it's a rebuilt vehicle. But many times it would just go from owner to the next owner without ever being transferred to the w