Hansard Transcripts 2003-Jun-05 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I move that, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should support the principle of greater accountability for politicians at the municipal level and consult with the Association of Municipalities, and municipalities, on how municipal politicians can be subject to the similar legislated requirements of public disclosure, accountability, and independent investigation with which all members of the Legislative Assembly and executive council currently comply.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Christopherson has moved ballot item number 11, private member's notice of motion number 9. The member for Hamilton West has up to 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Christopherson: I appreciate the opportunity to address this issue.

Let me just say at the outset that I'm going to be pretty shocked, quite frankly, if this doesn't end up being motherhood. So my 10 minutes are going to be based on the fact that I expect this will be seen as such and that it would have the support of the House. I'll be very interested in any member who is going to stand in their place and suggest that, somehow, we ought not have any kind of accountability at all at the municipal level, which, quite frankly, is the way it is right now.

Again, to be very frank and upfront, the reason this is here, as many will know, is that I'm contemplating a return to the municipal world of politics. What I've found interesting, and shocking in many ways, was that having been here for 13 years, a number of those years as a member of the executive council in cabinet, I have, like every other member of this place, gone every year to meet with the Integrity Commissioner, formerly known as the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, to lay out -- modest as it is -- my entire financial situation: all your credit cards, all the money that you owe, any money you might have, any stocks, RRSPs, and also if you have guaranteed any loans. The whole purpose of that is so that it's easy for the public or another member of the Legislature to quickly determine whether or not there has been a conflict of interest.

I can't count the number of times that I have seen matters referred to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, now the Integrity Commissioner, and once that response comes back, that's the end of it. Whatever the answer is, whether further action needs to be taken or whether it's determined that there wasn't a conflict of interest, it is dealt with efficiently, quickly, and in a way that everyone considers all of the ethical matters to be dealt with and the whole thing to be transparent and honourable.

Yet when I think about a possible return to city council, I go from being a backbencher in the third party with about as little power as you can have in this place and having full disclosure of any kind of financial arrangement, entanglement, connection that I might have with anybody or anything in the world, to being possibly a member of a city council -- in the case of Hamilton, an operating budget of over $1 billion a year -- where I don't have to disclose anything. Not one shred of my personal finances or my personal financial arrangements with anybody is registered anywhere. Here we go from being a backbencher in the third party with full disclosure every year for 13 years, to being on a council responsible for $1 billion a year, and you don't have to tell anyone what any of your business is.

How does this affect the public? Right now, any member of the public or any member of this Legislature can contact the Integrity Commissioner and say, "I believe there's been a possible conflict of interest here. I'd like it looked into," and it is. That's really all you need to do. But under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act -- and there is one, but it's relatively toothless because it's all on the individual -- if you, the public, have a concern about a member of council anywhere in Ontario, you have to go to a judge, and there are time limits to be met.

For the average person, going to a judge is a huge deal, not to mention the fact that there are costs involved, if nothing else, possibly time off work in order to follow up. You've got to make the entire case. That's an awful lot to ask of a member of the public who has reason to think there may be something untoward here that needs to be looked at. They're expected to go from concern about something all the way to the courts. It makes no sense whatsoever.

How did we get to this situation? I suspect the reason we haven't followed in lockstep -- because the feds do the same thing; MPs have a similar process to what we have here -- is that, going back 100 years, municipalities were not a large government in their own right. Their budgets were usually fairly small. The matters involved were small. Everybody knew everybody, and it was pretty hard to pull something off unless the whole town or village was in on the deal.

But now the top five municipalities in Ontario have incredible populations and budgets that go with them: Toronto, 2.5 million people; Ottawa, 740,000 people; Mississauga, 600,000; my hometown of Hamilton, over 500,000 people; London, 330,000 people. Some of those cities are bigger than provinces, and the budgets that go with them.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): Some countries.

Mr Christopherson: I just heard my friend say, "Some countries." That's true.

Municipal budgets -- and these are round figures: the operating budget for the city of Toronto in 2002 was roughly $6.2 billion. Backbencher, third party, Ontario Legislature: full financial disclosure, total and complete, and the ability to follow up with questions; a budget of $6.2 billion, and not one member of that council, including the mayor, has to do anything at all, let alone anything close to what we do here.

1010

Ottawa: an operating budget of $1.8 billion. That's a lot of money. Mississauga: well over $1 billion. Hamilton: we just crossed over the line; we now have an operating budget of over $1 billion. Toronto's budget is almost as big as the entire provincial budget of Alberta. Hamilton's budget is almost as big as that of Newfoundland and Labrador. Yet every single province in this country, including PEI, which has a population of, what, something under 150,000, has some process of an Integrity Commissioner type of office where you make those disclosures and then the public has the accessibility and the transparency as they have here in Ontario. And you would expect that. I think we'd all be shocked to find out that the province of Alberta or Newfoundland and Labrador, or any other province for that matter, would not have some type of Integrity Commissioner where we have to disclose our financial connections so that the public can be satisfied that everything is being done above-board. Yet we allow a situation to exist where those provinces that have a smaller population and a smaller budget, less money they're responsible for, less money they can give out than many of our major municipalities, have the Integrity Commissioner and the municipalities don't.

That's the core of this, Speaker, and that's why I'm not suggesting for a minute that it's anything radical or wild-eyed. I had looked at coming out with something a little more detailed, an actual bill that tied the municipalities to our Integrity Commissioner, but Linda Mitchell in my office placed a call to the commissioner's office and we found out, like most things, it's not that straightforward and their ability to handle that kind of workload was questionable.

So rather than get into the details of it, which quite frankly is also easy to knock down -- you can find one part of the bill you don't like and you can vote against it -- in this case all I've done is make a very straightforward statement that I'm asking this House to adopt whereby we say that the government of Ontario, regardless of the political stripe, has an obligation to begin the process of contacting AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and other municipalities and municipal leaders, to begin the process of taking municipal expenses and finances and budgeting and bringing them into the same arena of light and transparency and accountability that we have here, that we in this House call on the government of the day to begin that process. Democracy calls for it; fairness calls for it. The public right to know the financial connections of their politicians is also at stake here, and I would urge my colleagues to send that strong message.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to indicate my support for the motion and say I think it's a good step forward.

The public hold politicians in relatively low esteem. We all look at the public opinion polls, and we're right down near the bottom in terms of the respect people have for various professions. You also see that the percentage of people who vote in each election is trending downward. It's true federally, it's true provincially, it's true municipally. There's the odd blip in it, but by and large it's trending downward, and it's because, I think, people increasingly are losing confidence in their democratic institutions. Every one of us has heard the comment, "All you politicians are dishonest." We tend to get brushed with the same stroke, so anything we can do that helps to restore the sense of confidence that the public have in politicians is a good step forward.

Mr Christopherson is right: each year, all the members of the Legislature are required to file with the Integrity Commissioner quite an extensive background on the various assets we have, and then we meet every year with the Integrity Commissioner, who has gone over our file, and answer questions. As Mr Christopherson said, we then, if there is an issue raised here in the Legislature about a conflict of interest about any of us, have a vehicle for doing that. So I think it's a good step to look at a similar mechanism for our municipalities and to seek the advice of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

I would say, however, that I think in many respects the Legislature is far more secretive and far less open than municipalities are, and there are many members of all parties whose background is municipal politics. You would never get away, municipally, with many of the things that we find happen here in the Legislature in terms of secrecy and lack of access and openness. I go back to the "budget presentation" that was made this year by the Premier; it wasn't even done here in the Legislature. The Legislature was supposed to have been sitting -- the public should be aware. On December 12, we left the Legislature. We did not come back until May. The Legislature was supposed to sit in the month of March, but the Premier decided no, and he passed a resolution. He simply said, "We're not going to sit," because if we'd been sitting, we would have had the budget here. Then he presented the "budget" not here in the Legislature but at the Magna facilities, a private company.

As I say, I'm supportive of Mr Christopherson's motion. I think it will add in some ways to an increased sense of confidence by the public in municipal politicians, and so I will support it. But I would say to all of us that in many respects we're far worse than municipalities here in terms of openness and access and public scrutiny of what we do. Nothing could be more clear than the nerve to present the key document, the budget, not here in the Legislature but at Magna.

The even more shocking thing to me was, when the Speaker found the government in contempt of the Legislature by doing that, I was convinced that the government would say, "Mr Speaker, we appreciate your view on this, we accept your view on it, and we will commit from now forward to present the budget to the Legislature." But the government said, "No, we don't even agree with the Speaker. We'll do whatever we want. If we want to present the budget anywhere we want, at any time, we'll do it." They essentially just thumbed their nose at the Speaker and, more importantly, at the public.

As I say, Mr Christopherson's motion is a sensible one. It will make, I think, some difference in terms of public confidence in municipal politicians. But I would say that as he moves on to another career, we have in many respects far more to do here to correct our own House than the municipalities have to do.

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to, if I could, recognize the young boys and girls from Heritage Christian School from Jordan Station. Thanks for coming and watching today.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It seems petty, but there were about 30 seconds off the clock between when he sat down and the point of order, and the clock kept running. I am just asking if you can put that back on.

The Acting Speaker: We're going to fix that. That will be restored.

The member for Niagara Centre.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): New Democrats, of course, enthusiastically support this resolution. Indeed, one would expect nothing less from Mr Christopherson. Think about it: Mr Christopherson, as a potential mayoralty candidate in the city of Hamilton, will be the only one of those mayoralty candidates about whom the public can determine, by virtue of simply coming to the Clerk's office here at Queen's Park, his assets, his liabilities, his holdings, his financial interests etc, because he has made that full declaration as a result of being a member of this Legislative Assembly.

1020

As well, I'm confident in suggesting that Mr Christopherson's authorship and presentation of this resolution today is indicative of his style not only here but when it comes to municipal politics. Mr Christopherson is calling for public disclosure by municipal politicians, for greater accountability and the availability of independent investigation.

I want to indicate clearly, certainly to folks in Hamilton, that that is obviously what they can expect from Mr Christopherson as mayor of the city of Hamilton. That speaks well for the residents of Hamilton. The leadership inherent in this resolution should, I put to you, be emulated by municipal politicians in every other region and municipality in the province of Ontario.

It's been many years ago now, but I too served as a city councillor, in the city of Welland. While some members of council and mayors make voluntary disclosures, others are oh so reluctant to provide even the most modest of disclosures. That, I put to you, speaks volumes and should be cause for great concern.

What Mr Christopherson is proposing today is that there be a common standard across the province and that every municipal politician -- mayor, councillor or reeve, whether it's big-city Ontario or small-town Ontario -- should be subjected to the same standard. This isn't to be malicious. It isn't to discourage people from entering municipal politics. Indeed, it's to give members of the public -- voters, taxpayers, residents of every municipality in this province -- an opportunity to really know whom they're electing and, quite frankly, to assess the positions those councillors or mayors take in the context of what financial interests they may have and what financial interests they may be advancing by virtue of positions they take.

We have a new Municipal Act, which, once again, has conflict-of-interest provisions in it. Regrettably, I believe that many municipal politicians are overly cautious and have been intimidated into too-frequent declarations of conflict of interest. I also believe there are more than a few municipal politicians who hide behind a declaration of conflict of interest to avoid taking a position on contentious or sensitive issues.

The provision being promoted by Mr Christopherson will, quite frankly, help to clarify what indeed is a conflict of interest and help to assure those councillors who, as I say, feel somewhat intimidated by overly cautious advice or overly cautious positions they adopt. It will relieve them of that, because the public will know. There will be a full disclosure as to what financial interests that person has, and frankly financial interests that are related to intimate family members.

I suggest it would be delinquent of any member of this assembly not to support this resolution; indeed this resolution should be passed unanimously.

I also feel incredibly comforted that Mr Christopherson identifies this as part of his agenda in terms of his pursuit of the position of mayor of the city of Hamilton. I call upon other mayors and other municipal politicians to follow his example.

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I am pleased to rise this morning to support the resolution put forth by the member for Hamilton West. I think a measure of this kind is long overdue.

There are many who say that in many ways our municipal politicians are closer to the electorate than any level of government, and I have to agree with that. More importantly, some of the matters that municipal politicians deal with affect the everyday lives of many of our constituents, and they play an important function. I think this government has recognized that more responsibility should be given to our municipal representatives in that they play such a great role in the lives of Ontario citizens.

Commensurate with that, I think there is an obligation, however, to bring the standards of integrity up to the same level as MPPs. That's not to say that the vast majority do not act in the manner of MPPs. They do. I recognize them and I congratulate the members of my municipal councils in Cambridge, Kitchener and North Dumfries -- all part of my riding -- who work very hard on behalf of the people and do their very best. They are to be congratulated.

However, although they are presently covered by the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, which requires them to disclose pecuniary interests in any matter before council and to abstain from voting or trying to influence the matter, that may not go far enough because it does not deal with their personal business, which we as MPPs must reveal to the Integrity Commissioner.

Municipalities are also subject to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I have to agree with some of the comments made that perhaps some municipal councillors seem to be or are perceived to be somewhat cautious in declaring a conflict of interest where perhaps none exists in actual legal fact. On the other hand, that is a healthy situation. They are concerned, not just with doing what is right but being perceived as doing what is right. I know all municipal councillors share that belief, and that is an important function.

However, Mr Christopherson's resolution, as mentioned, goes further than that and brings the level of disclosure of assets to the level of MPPs. I think that is an important step in our province. It's a step that I believe the vast majority if not all municipal councillors would welcome, because they are as concerned as us with the public perception of elected representatives in this province, and I think that is a most healthy situation.

Mr Agostino: I am pleased to rise in support of the resolution of my good friend and colleague Mr Christopherson from Hamilton West. I think it's timely, with the municipal elections coming. I am pleased to tell you that I am certainly very supportive -- and will support Mr Christopherson's bid for mayor -- along with my colleague Marie Bountrogianni from Hamilton Mountain, because we believe this resolution reflects the type of integrity we need to bring back at the city council level across this province.

I spent seven years on city council in Hamilton, a number of those with David. The role of municipalities and the role of city councils has changed dramatically over the years, and unfortunately the legislation has not kept up with that. Frankly, the accountability that should be there is not there. It's important because it's not only the perception but also the reality of the situation where councils are dealing with some very, very major issues today, compared to, say, 20 or 30 years ago. A city council, with a zoning application, can literally take a useless piece of land and turn it into something worth tens of millions of dollars. The nature of the decisions that are made and the size of the budgets have changed dramatically.

1030

The conflict-of-interest legislation as it now exists has very little investigative power. Often, the first line in some municipal acts is a city clerk, who of course reports to those city councillors who are there. There is very little in legislation that prohibits councillors from doing business with the city, a significant amount of business. There is no mechanism for knowing which councillors own what companies that may do business with the city of Hamilton. It's simply left to the discretion of the individuals. In this age where the public expects transparency, where the public expects openness in government, our Municipal Act has unfortunately failed badly and has not kept up with that.

Let's understand: unlike us on the opposition side of the House -- we don't have a lot of power to change or make laws here -- city councillors, in a sense, are almost in a cabinet, like an executive council, because decisions are made collectively. They vote, they make a decision, and the balance of power is there, unlike in our system here, where we're held to a much higher standard, even on the opposition side of the House, than city councillors, who in a sense have many of the same powers that a cabinet minister would or the executive council of the province of Ontario would.

It's important to ensure we restore the faith. Politicians have taken a beating over the years, much of it deserved, some of it not deserved. Every step we can take to restore that trust, that public confidence, that sense in people that people don't get into politics for themselves or for their own personal gain but to help make a better community, a better place to live, a better province, any steps we can take to restore that faith in our political system I think will go a long way toward enhancing that. The act and the changes that have occurred over the years have not kept up.

Another area where I'd like to see some changes is in the powers, for example, of the mayor. We have a situation in the act today where the mayor has one vote, as every other councillor does. A mayor in the city of Hamilton, who may get 200,000 or 250,000 votes, has the same voting power as a councillor who will get elected with 3,000 or 4,000 votes in one particular ward. The situation in the city of Toronto is much greater than that.

As we look at this legislation, I think we need to also go beyond that and look at whether there is an opportunity to change the act to give the mayor some extra powers. In a sense, the mayor of a municipality has the mandate of all of the people, the basic representation of all of the people in that municipality. I think that's important and I would like to see that changed, because I think it's often frustrating. You look to a mayor for leadership, and of course it's the power, the ability to bring people together, that clout of the office of mayor and your ability to work with council that allows you as mayor of a city to make changes and bring things forward. But frankly, when push comes to shove in the voting and the ability to get things done, unless you can convince a majority of your colleagues on any issue, anything from a stop sign to hiring a department head, you absolutely have no power, or very little clout. So I think it's important when we look at that to look at that evolution as well.

I think this piece of legislation is well worth it. It would be a great change if we bring it forward. I think it will help restore the sense of confidence in municipal councils. I congratulate Mr Christopherson for bringing this forward, and hopefully this will pass unanimously today.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I rise today as well in support of this resolution. I had, as the members of this House will know, the opportunity to serve on the new megacity of the city of Toronto for nearly four and a half years before resigning to come to this august place. I will tell you that in those initial years of a new and extremely large city there was a lot of discussion on how to preserve integrity. There was a lot of discussion on how to make sure financial transactions were above-board.

I was very proud to have served on the committee that recommended an auditor general for the city of Toronto to make sure that monies that were being expended on behalf of the people of that city were expended wisely. The city of Toronto made a good decision in going from a system that most municipalities in Ontario use, which is independent outside auditors, to one that was internal, and appointed one of their own to head it up.

I was less successful in my attempts to get an integrity commissioner for the city of Toronto. In fact, shortly after the time that I left, that entire idea was nixed.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): You should have stayed.

Mr Prue: No, I'm not sure it would have made any difference.

I do know that during that entire period, at the start of every council meeting there was a call for conflicts of interest, when the councillors and the mayor would stand up individually and recognize those things for which they believed they may have a conflict of interest. Sometimes they ranged from the silly and the bizarre -- where people were claiming conflicts that were obviously not covered by the Municipal Act, in an attempt to get out of controversial issues, or simply to be able to get an afternoon off, if there was a long debate anticipated -- to those that there were heartfelt and absolutely true.

But what always troubled me and troubled most of the members who were elected to the city of Toronto council was there were often times when we felt that there were conflicts there but the members did not stand up. We did not have the authority to challenge them; we could not do so. Even the council itself could not challenge that someone had a conflict. That was left up to the courts and to another entire process that was devoid of and outside the council's responsibility.

As a result of some of what went on, we now witness the spectacle in the city of Toronto of the MFP inquiry. We can see the whole train of people who have been called before that inquiry and the sleazy underbelly of what happens when conflicts are not declared, when cozy little deals are being made. We have heard from Jeff Lyons about the $150,000 -- although it's not clear whether it was for him or for someone else. We have heard from Tom Jacobek, who has admitted under oath that he lied, and then lied about the lies. We have heard about Dash Domi, who made a lot of money and clearly had no expertise in that type of salesman's job. We have heard, tragically, from the mayor of Toronto, Mr Mel Lastman, that he didn't know anything that was going on. He didn't know it from staff, politicians or lobbyists. He didn't even know it from Jeff Lyons, who had helped him manage and fundraise through all of his campaigns. We are about to hear in the next few weeks from Wanda Liczyk, the former treasurer of Toronto, who now works for OPG. I am sure that testimony is going to be very enlightening.

But sadly, last October, when debating the very issue that we have before us today -- whether or not to have an integrity commissioner -- the administration committee nixed the entire idea. They did not want an independent integrity commissioner. If any city in this province needs an integrity commissioner, I would suggest Toronto does, not because its politicians are bad but because of the overwhelming size of the city with a $6.2-billion budget and the overwhelming size of city council, being 55 members, and the overwhelming impossibility for ordinary people to know personally their city of Toronto councillor. I represented 57,000 people at the city of Toronto during the last year and a half, and before that, I represented 115,000 people, who could not all personally know me or where a potential conflict might exist. One might find that in a small town with a reeve and a couple of councillors who all live in your village and you know them, their house and the car they drive. That is impossible in extremely large cities.

This leaves the citizenry with only one option, and that is the courts. It is not surprising that that option is hardly ever taken up. It is expensive, time-consuming, and the burden of proof is upon the accuser -- the burden of proof when one has absolutely no facts by which to go. I would suggest that is why we are not seeing conflicts prosecuted.

This is a very simple resolution. I suggest that if all members agree, this is something that the province should do on behalf of the municipalities. We've seen a lot of downloading exercises; let's have an uploading exercise that actually works. Upload this responsibility to the Integrity Commissioner or to a part of his office for municipalities. Upload it so that the citizens of this province, through their municipalities, can be assured that the politicians at the local level have the same guarantees or the same responsibilities that we in this House so gladly share with our Integrity Commissioner, so that everyone will know that we are honest and doing what needs to be done.

1040

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): It's a pleasure to join in the debate today to support Mr Christopherson's resolution. I'll just refresh the memories of the people out there as to what the resolution is. It is, "In the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should support the principle of greater accountability for politicians at the municipal level and consult with the Association of Municipalities, and municipalities, on how municipal politicians can be subject to the similar legislated requirements of public disclosure, accountability, and independent investigation with which all members of the Legislative Assembly and executive council currently comply."

I support that resolution. In my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, I believe I have more municipalities than probably any other riding in the province. I have 33 municipalities in the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka. We have six moderate-sized municipalities in Muskoka, with Bracebridge, Huntsville, Lake of Bays, Muskoka Lakes, Georgian Bay township and Gravenhurst, as well as the district upper-tier government in Muskoka, and I have 26 municipalities in the Parry Sound district, as well as unorganized territories, which have local service boards that make local decisions -- and from time to time there are conflicts. I know currently there are some conflicts between one of my local service boards and the fire department in the northern part of the riding.

I work on a regular basis with the mayors, the reeves, the councillors -- in fact, hardly a day goes by that I'm not in contact with the various municipal politicians. In fact, this morning I just got off the phone with Ted Knight, the mayor of Parry Sound, making him aware of the various marketing programs that are available to municipalities for efforts to revitalize the community post-SARS, because Parry Sound recently was hit with some significant quarantines. About a sixth of the population, 1,000 people of the 6,000 in the town of Parry Sound, were recently in quarantine. I have certainly heard from the mayor and from businesses that they need to revitalize the community. So I was on the phone with the mayor, making him aware of the Ontario tourism marketing partnership programs available to help regenerate that community. Yesterday I was talking to Bill Core, from Perry township, to do with some local issues there. So hardly a day goes by that I'm not involved with the local politicians.

I would like to point out that those local politicians generally do a great job. They're there for the right reasons. They're motivated, because they're interested in doing the best they can for their communities. They certainly don't take on the responsibilities because of the pay they receive, because it's, generally speaking, not a huge amount of money. But I think it is a good thing that there be more disclosure. In our case, as MPPs, we have to do an annual disclosure statement to the Integrity Commissioner of things like our assets and those of our family members -- assets, bank accounts, investments -- and it's available to the public as well. I think that's a good thing. It's more accountability; it keeps the whole process transparent and open. I think this sort of process, applied to municipal politicians, would not be onerous and it would be a positive step toward increasing accountability.

Mr Bradley: I am rising to speak in support of the resolution of Mr Christopherson, and I want to commend him for bringing it forward. It's very timely. Perhaps it has been timely for a number of years now, but we have just not seen the kind of legislation and framework that is necessary to ensure that the accountability and integrity at the local level is under the same scrutiny as it is here at the provincial level.

First of all, we start off by knowing that overwhelmingly our locally elected officials are honest people, people of integrity, people who have the best interests of their constituents in mind. Therefore, those individuals are not going to object to some kind of legislative framework that might emerge from this resolution.

Keep in mind that the member has not simply said that we in this House will impose upon municipalities some rules and regulations without any consultation. He has specifically said in his resolution that we are debating this morning that there shall be consultation with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, which represents municipalities in this province, and also with municipalities themselves on perhaps an individual basis.

We have to recognize that anybody who has a chance to make decisions may make decisions which are to the benefit of themselves, or decisions which are to the benefit of friends or financial contributors. If information is provided to the public on where those contributions have been made, how much they were; if there is an opportunity to investigate when there is a problem and we have somebody comparable to an integrity commissioner for the municipalities in this province, that will be a great advantage.

We have seen in the news in the past year, for instance, a number of examples of people who have been under suspicion, to say the least. These may be related to contracts that are provided to municipalities; these may be related to developments which take place within the bounds of a municipality, or a decision that simply benefits one individual or one particular business group. So, to avoid that, the member has suggested, I think wisely, that we find a mechanism to avoid that happening at the municipal level, and if it does happen to have a mechanism to deal with it appropriately in terms of investigation and penalties that can be applied.

I think this is very important for the public. The public wants to know that its elected individuals are above-board, that their interests are on the table so people can see them, and I know there is an opportunity now for municipal politicians at a council meeting to declare conflicts of interest. Some have mentioned that that has been done from time to time to avoid making a decision on a particular subject. I don't know how often that happens, but I think it's always better to err on the side of caution in these matters.

The member has clearly said: people at the provincial level must declare assets and so on on a confidential basis to a commissioner. If a member of this Legislature wishes to draw to the attention of the Integrity Commissioner something that he or she believes is worthy of investigation, that can be done at this level. Keep in mind that, as someone said to me the other day, it is much harder to buy an entire government or buy an entire caucus within a Legislature than it is an individual who might be representing them at the local level.

We hope that doesn't happen. This resolution will go a long way to reducing the risk of that happening. It's in line with the quest we all have for open government, for accountable government, for integrity at all levels of government, and I think it commends itself to support by all members of this Legislature. I hope from it will flow legislation which will meet the goals of the resolution.

1050

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm certainly pleased to join the debate with respect to the resolution. Having been a former councillor of the city of Barrie, I can tell you that there were municipal conflict-of-interest guidelines. When you're dealing with a matter that you could have a pecuniary interest in, indirectly or directly, there is an obligation obviously to declare a conflict of interest and not vote or debate or be a part of those discussions.

What the member from Hamilton is proposing here is to bring it up to a higher standard, to the standard that we have here in the Legislature, which is a very high standard of disclosure with respect to your own personal dealings, which I know is being hotly debated right now at the federal level. They're looking to bring in greater disclosure with respect to your financial portfolio. That's one of the things we have to file every year, in terms of our financial area and also the rules we face as different members.

I think the key word here is "integrity." That's what is important out there, in terms of: how do you bring integrity to the system? Well, obviously, the members have to have integrity. The system has to be designed to make accountability the main factor, so that you can avoid the scandals which are plaguing the city of Toronto right now with respect to the MFP inquiry and the fingerpointing that is there.

Integrity, in terms of the members being transparent in terms of their financial wherewithal, certainly would be a step forward with respect to keeping the members aware of what their role is. I think it's very important, because municipal government has an incredible impact, not only with respect to the development of the community but certainly for developers and business people who can benefit by the decisions that are made at the municipal level. The power to rezone lands with respect to official plans is an enormous power with tremendous economic benefits for those who are the beneficiaries.

So I think the level of integrity that's being demanded of this Legislature certainly shouldn't be any less for municipalities, and I think that's where the member is headed. I think that would bring that transparency.

I think the public needs to know, with respect to a member, and to have that public disclosure in terms of where they stand. If you don't have a system that's in place -- and I think the way it's set up right now with the municipal conflict of interest, it's really dealing with things that are coming on the floor and that are being debated and discussed, whereas I think you may have to go a little bit further with respect to bringing the members in line with respect to other matters and to bring home what it means to be in public office.

Integrity of the member is something that has to be drilled home to the members because, quite frankly, if you don't have a system in place where they have to disclose and be a part of the process, in terms of filling out forms or dealing with what they're accountable for, who knows whether the members even know if they're subject to the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act? That would probably be part of their briefing when they're brought in as new councillors, but I think it has to go another step further, and I think that's what the member is trying to get at here: going that extra step to make sure they understand, not only from a briefing but from a written form, what their responsibility is. They have an enormous amount of power, and they also have the respect of the community and their constituents who have elected them.

So I think the member is on the right track, and I would support that fully.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I'm pleased to support this resolution.

I heard my colleague say something, and I have to ask him the question. He said he was contemplating moving to municipal politics. I thought the decision was made. Does he mean to say that he's coming back? I just need him to answer that question; it's not a very serious one. I'm just joking.

A couple of things, really quickly: in my view, if there is anybody who has to have conflict-of-interest guidelines, it's probably more so at the municipal level. In this Legislature we all understand, and I think most people will understand, that the lower the level of government, the closer you are to the people. On a daily basis, the municipalities deal with developers and with people looking to get zoning changes and all kinds of things that are a daily occurrence. If you need transparency, you certainly need to have it at the municipal level.

That's not to say there's a whole bunch of crooked politicians at the municipal level. By and large, I think that most people who serve at the municipal level are honest, hard-working people who are trying to do the right job in serving their community, and those people aren't paid very well for what they do. Most of them do it as a part-time, temporary job, for which they get paid a stipend of maybe 1,000 bucks a month, if they're lucky, and they put far more than $1,000 worth of wages back in that job as municipal alderman, or councillor, depending on where you live.

I think the issue is that you need to give the public a sense of transparency. You have to give them some assurances, for example, that if a particular councillor or mayor is associated with a particular development group, that will be disclosed so that it's very clear that if that issue comes before committee of the whole or comes before municipal council or in a closed session, the councillor or mayor in that case would have to remove themselves from any of the influence they may bring toward giving that particular company any kind of additional favour because they happen to be associated with them as a director or may have received some kind of gift from them or whatever.

I think that's not onerous. It's already something we do here at the provincial level. I've got to disclose, as all members of the Legislature do, if I've received any kind of gift -- what's the limit? I think it's $50 or $100. If you get a pen that's worth $50 -- I forget what the limit is; it's either $50 or $100, something like that. It's not a lot. But the point is, if anybody gives you, as a member of the assembly, any kind of gift -- I think it's in excess of $100 -- you've got to report that to the commissioner, and rightfully so. Suppose someone decided to give me a trip for $500 or $1,000.

Feedback from sound system.

Mr Agostino: It's a foghorn.

Mr Bisson: It's a foghorn, exactly. I've got one on my airplane in case there's fog. That really threw me off for the last couple of seconds.

Interjection: It's like The Gong Show.

Mr Bisson: I'm about to get the hook. Anyway, I just want to say that all of us here in the assembly clearly have to work under those guidelines. Why? Because we need to give the public the assurance that we're not giving any kind of favour to a particular company because we may be associated with them or had a gift. When those things happen, you have to have the commissioner of conflict of interest come in and give judgment as to whether the member has or hasn't broken the rules.

I think applying those rules at the municipal level wouldn't be seen by municipalities as a hostile act. I agree with Mr Christopherson that we shouldn't be trying to impose something without first consulting with municipalities and AMO, and that's what his resolution calls far.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): I want to commend the member for Hamilton West for bringing this resolution forward. My knowledge of the member over the past eight years and my experience with him has always indicated that he is a man who is highly principled, a man of integrity, and I don't question any motive whatever that he may have in bringing this forward, as some in this place may.

I want to say that all municipal politicians are already subject to the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, which requires those members of municipal council to disclose any pecuniary interest in any matter before council.

However, in the 2003 budget our government indicated that the government will work with municipalities to enrich accountability for public investment and public services. The member opposite will of course be aware that in our party platform for the upcoming election campaign there is a pledge that increases to municipal taxes would have to be approved by the taxpayers in a referendum. That falls in line, essentially, with what the member for Hamilton West is trying to do as well. There are going to be municipal stakeholders who will complain, but I think you're going to have a fair amount of support among municipal stakeholders as well. I think you will have both complaints and opposition from municipal councillors and municipal mayors, but I think that what this does is set a higher standard for all municipal politicians, and of course we all know that all politics are local. Why should municipal politicians be held to any lower standard than what we in this place are?

The Acting Speaker: Response?

Mr Christopherson: Let me thank all colleagues from all three parties for your comments. Particularly on the last point, I appreciate that it's not seen as something other than exactly what it is. I appreciate that you give me the benefit of the doubt on that. Thank you.

1100

There are a few things on which I'll just take a moment; I don't have a lot of time. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt talked about how he was supporting this and the lack of secrecy in this place. It gives me the opportunity to again point out that we have a structured opposition, with an official opposition, a loyal opposition whose role is to go after the government and hold them accountable, still loyal to our system and our Constitution. But their job is to hold people accountable. You don't have that kind of dynamic on city council, at least it's not structured. It often exists on a personal basis, but it's not a structural part of it.

My friends from Niagara Centre and Cambridge both spoke to the fact that there are occasions when people are being overly cautious. I think that speaks well to councillors who are making declarations, but it removes far too many councillors from debates they otherwise should or could be involved in, and as my friend from Beaches-East York mentioned, there are some people -- I think his words were "silly" and "bizarre" -- who have silly and bizarre reasons for doing things. Perhaps they just want to stay out of a controversial issue and that's a nice, neat way to do it. This makes the whole thing very straightforward.

My friend from Hamilton East and a couple of others talked about this zoning issue, and that is so crucial. A piece of land worth virtually nothing can be made to be worth millions with one vote.

Lastly, my friend from St Catharines was good enough to mention that we consider almost all municipal politicians to be members of high integrity. This is merely added protection for democracy. I thank all members and hope they will support this resolution.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. This completes the time allocated for discussing ballot item number 11. I will take the vote on this item at 12 o'clock noon.

TRUTH ABOUT IPPERWASH ACT, 2003 /
LOI DE 2003 CONCERNANT
LA VÉRITÉ SUR IPPERWASH

Mr Phillips moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 46, An Act to provide for a public inquiry to discover the truth about events at Ipperwash Provincial Park leading to the death of Dudley George / Projet de loi 46, Loi prévoyant une enquête publique pour découvrir la vérité sur les événements qui se sont produits au parc provincial Ipperwash et qui ont conduit au décès de Dudley George.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member for Scarborough-Agincourt has up to 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm seeking support for my bill, which calls for a public inquiry. Just to remind the public of this event, it took place in September 1995, shortly after the new government came in. The First Nations took over Ipperwash Provincial Park after the park closed on Labour Day. The OPP had known about the plans for this for at least a month. Two days later, Dudley George was killed in a confrontation with the OPP. It's the first time a First Nations person has died in a land claim dispute in at least 100 years.

The reasons for the need for a public inquiry are twofold. There is, I think, very strong evidence of inappropriate political involvement in the police operations at Ipperwash Provincial Park at the very highest level, and I'm referring to the then Premier of the day.

The evidence of that has been gathered over eight years. Firstly, notes from meetings held on the actual day of the shooting show this: "The Premier's office wants removal now." Then you see an arrow pointing the other way: "OPP removal later." So it's this conflict between the Premier's office and the OPP. The OPP did not want removal now; the Premier's office did. The OPP are reluctant, since it appears to be a land dispute. The issue is political direction of the OPP.

That's the first piece of evidence of inappropriate involvement.

After seven years of pushing for this, the Premier finally acknowledged that the day of the shooting he held a meeting with three cabinet ministers and two senior OPP officers. As I say, for a long while he said he had no involvement in it. At that meeting, there is a note that says, "Attorney General instructed by Premier that he desires removal within 24 hours," more evidence of what I regard as totally inappropriate involvement in this operation.

We have transcripts of the two commanding police officers after they heard this, saying, "That's not what we want. We want more time." The local member of the Legislature, a Conservative member I might add, was at the police command post at least four times before the shooting death. Four hours before the shooting, he was at the command post and said, "If police services can't do it, get someone who can. I don't mind taking the controversy."

We have here the typed notes from the police, and we had those notes probably three or four years ago. We then found the handwritten notes that provided the basis for the typed notes. We found six references to the Premier in the handwritten notes that were omitted from the typed notes.

Among things the Premier is saying in the handwritten notes: "We're on the right track." The typed note omits the Premier from those notes. In another handwritten note: "The Premier is in constant touch, good communications." The typed note says, "John Carson advised that he was keeping in contact with the Kettle Point to get their feeling." No mention of the Premier.

It's extremely unusual that somehow or other the difference between the handwritten police notes and the typed notes excluded about six political references.

On occasion, the government has said that the police in a sworn affidavit said they took no direction from the government. That is not the case. In the sworn testimony of then-Commissioner O'Grady, a well-regarded individual, I might add, in his sworn affidavit, he's very careful of this when he says that he took no "command direction" from the government and that he was never ordered to remove them by force. But he's never, in a sworn affidavit, said he did not take direction from the government.

So that's the first issue that must be determined. I say to all of us, when the Premier of the province of Ontario, and I think the evidence is strong, is inappropriately involved in a police action, it demands a public inquiry.

The second reason it demands a public inquiry is, why did the province abandon a long-standing approach to dealing with this that had existed for decades? We have evidence here that there was no policy in place at the time of the shooting death. In fact, in this note, called "Actions To Be Taken," it says, "We must establish an aboriginal policy framework by October 2, 1995." They did not have a policy. They scrapped the existing policy, put nothing in place and then they said, "We must develop one by October 2, 1995," after the shooting death. It says, "NB: the fact the government is working on an ABF" -- aboriginal policy framework -- "will not be part of any messaging." In other words, "Don't tell anyone we don't have a policy."

Why did the government decide to abandon that long-standing tradition? Well, the available evidence said the Premier's executive assistant said, "The Premier is hawkish on this issue. It will set tone on how we deal with these issues over the next four years. It feels we're being tested on this issue. The Premier's office doesn't want to be seen working with Indians at all." The police, on the other hand, said, "It's imprudent to rush in."

The First Nations took over that park to protect a burial ground. At the time, we were told there was no burial ground, and then we found out that right here at Queen's Park the government had in its possession evidence of a burial ground. In fact, during construction of the park it was the government's own employee building the park who said, "Listen, we found a burial ground. This should be protected." It was the government's own document, and once it was made clear that the government had that document, it had to go to court and drop all the charges against the First Nations, because they had this defence called colour of right evidence of a burial ground.

1110

So all of us now are going to be part of the decision: do we or do we not call for a public inquiry? The government said, "We'll wait until the civil case is over before we make that decision." I'll make several points about the civil case.

The George family never wanted to launch a civil case. The only reason they did was because year after year the government refused to even commit to holding a public inquiry. They never wanted the public inquiry.

Any lawyer, outside of the government's lawyer, will tell you that the civil approach is not the right approach. Can you imagine the reaction of the people of Walkerton if we had ever said, "If you want to find out what happened at Walkerton, launch a civil case. Sue us. We're not going to hold a public inquiry." It's the same thing here.

Dudley George's brother, Sam George, is here. He has been subjected to the worst kinds of government abuse: $3 million of taxpayer money attacking him, calling him a terrorist. It's shameful. It is truly shameful. The former Premier has spent well over $1 million himself fighting Sam George in a battle that he should never, ever have to fight. The only reason he's doing it is because the government will not commit to holding a public inquiry.

The George family is a family of very modest means, and up against it is the entire state apparatus: $3 million, and there will be a three-month civil case where another $2 million will be used to attack him. It's wrong.

The evidence is overwhelming. There is a need for a public inquiry. The only reason the civil case was ever started was because the George family always suspected that Premier Harris, and now Premier Eves, would never call a public inquiry.

It is a shameful piece of Ontario's history that we have a chance to begin to erase today. I would hope the members would study the material I sent them, would agree that we need to end this sorry chapter and begin a public inquiry now.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): It's certainly a pleasure to rise on behalf of my colleagues and the government. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt speaks about this matter in a very passionate way. But certainly this matter is before the courts. I would say, on behalf of the government, that we would not be participating in this debate.

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): I just can't believe that the government of Ontario would not participate in this debate. First the government said the public inquiry couldn't happen. They said, "It can't happen because there are criminal and civil matters underway." Then the criminal matter was finished and the government said, "We can't debate this in this House because the civil matter is underway," and the government knew that was wrong. They would have gotten advice from the Attorney General, they would have gotten advice from Cabinet Office that there is absolutely no obstacle to a public inquiry in circumstances where a civil proceeding is underway. They know that.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): Walkerton.

Mr Bryant: Walkerton happened at the same time that civil proceedings were underway. We know that. We consulted, and the Legislature consulted, with Professor Patrick Macklem at the University of Toronto faculty of law. He's an expert on this. I've read this in the House, but I'll read it again. Here's what he said, and why he said we need to have a public inquiry and why a civil proceeding is inappropriate:

"Public inquiries are often able to investigate, inform, and educate in ways superior to those available to the judicial and legislative branches of government. The judicial process, according to the Ontario Law Reform Commission, tends to assign blame by `fragmenting issues into a limited set of categories established by existing norms,' whereas a public inquiry enables a broader examination of social causes and conditions."

He says, and this is important, "Public inquiries often perform an important social function, contributing to `a dramatic transformation in popular perceptions of some previously poorly illuminated aspects of Canadian society and institutions.'"

That is exactly what is happening here, thanks to some extremely courageous Ontarians, one of whom is the member who just spoke, Mr Gerry Phillips. Thanks to a number of extremely courageous Ontarians, this sorry chapter in Ontario's history continues to be a black eye on the province of Ontario, and the only way to get to the truth here is to have a public inquiry.

All the defences the government has thrown up and all the money the government has spent to avoid a public inquiry just leave Ontarians more and more suspicious that something dreadful, something that violates everything we believe about the way governments ought to operate, something that violates the very principle of the separation between the crown, the government, the executive council, on one hand, and those who must perform police duties and those who must prosecute, on the other hand -- something happened and somebody died, and we must get to the bottom of it.

Yet, the government comes up with excuse after excuse and spends taxpayer dollars down the drain, and now, in the last flagrant violation of their duties, they won't even debate it in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I can't believe it. I can't believe that they do not have the guts to stand in their place and defend their position. I can't believe that they would exercise such extraordinary arrogance and fail to stand up for the government of the day and defend its decision.

It is atrocious that the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General will not even take the time to rise in his place and explain why on earth the government of Ontario is obstructing justice in getting to the bottom of Ipperwash -- it is unbelievable -- and that it would not only neglect its duties as a government, and not only neglect its duties, I say to the Attorney General, as the chief legal officer and the person there to provide some measure of independence in the midst of this debacle, but they would also violate their democratic and legislative duties to stand up and defend their position in the Legislature.

These are serious charges made by a member of the Legislature who has served in this Legislature, served in the government certainly long enough for everybody in this House to take them pretty darned seriously. He's not going to let go of this one, I can assure you. Dalton McGuinty and Ontario Liberals are not going to let go of this one, I can assure you. We must get to the bottom of it, and I cannot believe the government of Ontario will not defend itself.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I'm a little bit stunned this morning as to what this government has now decided to do. I hope they reconsider their position and actually take the time to participate in this debate. I imagine, Mr George, that this government is going to participate in this debate when it comes to the vote. They're going to stand in this Legislature en masse and vote against and kill the motion that calls for a public inquiry.

I say to the government, if you want to stand up and vote against having a public inquiry, you should at least have the decency to get up in this Legislature and tell us, the members, and the George family and the rest of the population that's watching, why you choose to do that. This is really the most despicable thing I've seen in a long time.

Mr Levac: A free vote, Gilles?

Mr Bisson: There are no free votes on that side.

Let me just go through a couple of things -- I just wanted to start on that, because to me that is really beyond the pale. What is clear in this debate is that there is a mounting pile of evidence -- what the government said in its first defence around "Did they have any role in the George shooting?" -- starting to demonstrate that in fact there is a smoking gun, that there is something that indicates that what the government initially said when it came to its defence is really quite contrary to what the facts point to. There are all kinds of documents now that demonstrate that the government, quite frankly, was very much involved in the final decision to send the police into the park that resulted in the murder of Dudley George. For this government to say they won't participate in debate but are prepared to vote against this motion -- or are they going to abstain, which I really doubt, because if they abstain, it means to say we, the opposition, will carry the day. I have to believe that they're going to be voting in opposition to this motion. I think that's really, really despicable.

1120

There are a few things that have to be said. Mr Phillips laid out the facts as they present themselves as to the government's involvement. I want to come back and just concentrate on another issue. That issue is: one of the comments that was made by Premier Harris at the very beginning of all of this, according to the notes that we see from the conversations that happened in cabinet prior to the actual murder of Dudley George -- there were a couple of comments made that, to me, are quite astounding. The one comment that really blows me away is the comment that says, "The Premier does not want to be seen as working with Indians." I'm telling you, that is the most shocking thing that I've seen around this place. There's nothing that comes even close to it.

We're the immigrants here. We're the people that came into this country. It's not as if we came to this country and asked the native people to come here. They were here before us, and for the Premier of Ontario to take the position that he doesn't want to be seen as working with our First Nations people, to me is beyond the pale. If I look at the record of the government over the last eight years, there has been hardly an example shown anywhere that this government was prepared to do something positive toward the First Nations people of this province.

Quite aside from what happened with the Dudley George case, there are all kinds of pressing, pressing issues that have to be dealt with in First Nations communities. I represent James Bay. I represent Constance Lake. There are First Nations communities across this province, as in my riding, who are crying for help, who are saying, "We have some serious economic problems." There is no economic activity in their communities. How do you attract a car plant, or how do you attract any kind of economic opportunity to a community like Ogoki, that is at least 200 miles north of any highway? The government of Ontario's not doing anything to address the issues in that community.

You have acute housing shortages in communities like Fort Albany, Kashechewan and others, where you've got as many as 20 or 30 people living in one house. Ask yourself a question: how does a child learn at school when you have overcrowding inside the house? We're not talking about South Africa; we're talking about Ontario, a prosperous province such as Ontario that has the means to help but refuses to, and then a Premier that says, "I don't want to be seen as working with Indians because, politically, that's not the picture I want to give to the province of Ontario." I think it's a pretty sad reflection.

I had an opportunity here last fall when the assembled chiefs of the Mushkegowuk Tribal Council came here to Queen's Park to assist me in trying to get a motion passed here in the Legislature that would have said a very simple thing: that whenever there is development in the mining or forestry sectors in and around First Nations communities north of 50, there be a mechanism to do taxation, as we have with any other community in the province of Ontario. The thing would have been very simple. If, for example, you build a car plant in Windsor, well, you know what? The car plant pays taxes to the municipality. Everybody accepts that as good business. If there is a mine found in Timmins, the mine pays taxes to the city of Timmins. Everybody accepts that. The companies accept it; the population accepts it; everybody thinks that's a good thing. Why? Because that's how we pay for the infrastructure of our communities. But if you develop any kind of economic activity such as mining or forestry in and about a First Nations community, there is absolutely no mechanism to give the First Nations community any kind of share of the profit from that activity that's happening on their land.

We asked a very simple thing in this Legislature. We said, "We call on the provincial government to start a process of discussion with First Nations communities, the federal government and the province about developing a mechanism to share in the profits of those particular corporations that are doing business in and about First Nations communities so they can share in the wealth, as all other communities in the province can."

This government en masse, in front of the assembled chiefs of the Mushkegowuk Tribal Council and their Grand Chief Toby Beck, stood in opposition to that motion. Quite frankly, I was shocked, because early on I was getting indications from the government, from discussions I had with them for a couple of weeks before the motion, that they were actually in favour of starting that discussion. I thought, "Finally, we're going to get some progress under the Tory administration." Instead, they stood up -- the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, the AG responsible for native issues in the province of Ontario, the Minister of Energy, the MNR minister -- all ministers that deal with First Nations communities and the entire government got up and voted in opposition.

Why I raise that is I think it's pretty indicative of the comments that were made by Premier Harris in the summer of 1995 which was, according to the documents, that he doesn't want to be seen as working with those Indians. I say to him, first of all, that's a pretty racist thing to say. Number two, it looks like that was the policy of the government for the last eight years.

There are First Nations communities around this province who are in desperate need of assistance from this government, because clearly the federal government is not responding to the degree it needs to in those communities. The province could play a role, as we do with municipalities. We have no problem in this province supporting municipalities in Ontario, but we hide behind the fact that native communities are basically governed by the Indian Act, and because they are, we say, "Oh, we can't give money for housing. We can't give money for water and sewers. We can't give money for any basic infrastructure because, oh, they're a ward of the federal government. They're responsible under the Indian Act." All native leaders, people in native communities and non-natives alike are saying to this government that we have to stop hiding behind the Indian Act. We have to stop hiding behind the whole federal government issue because, at the end of the day, if we don't take our responsibility here as a province, our communities and places like the James Bay and others are going to have a heck of a hard time trying to deal with issues that are very pressing.

I know other members of my caucus are going to want to speak to this, so I say in closing that we will be voting proudly in support of the motion that was put forward by Mr Phillips. We do that knowing that the government is not going to be voting in support of it. But we think it's important that at least some of the members of this assembly stand up in support of First Nations communities and in support of what's happened to the George family and their wanting to be able to bring an end to this and to have a public inquiry.

The fact that the government refuses to get up and even debate this issue, to me, is beyond the pale. For the member to get up at the beginning of the debate and say, "Because this is before the courts, we're not going to comment to the Legislature," there's a real hollow ring to that because (a) we're protected in this Legislature from anything we say being used in court -- the reality is, you can't sue me for what I say in here, so what are you afraid of? -- and (b) I think it shows an affront to the First Nations people of this province that this government is going to remain silent on what is one of the most crucial issues to the First Nations communities over the last eight years: the murder of Dudley George. I just can't believe that this government is refusing to speak to this particular motion.

This is your opportunity to be heard on it. We're calling on this government to participate in this debate, to vote in favour of this motion and once and for all to give some closure, but, more importantly, to make sure that we develop policies in this province that don't allow this incident to be repeated ever again. The only way we can do that is by a public inquiry.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): Bill 46, the Truth About Ipperwash Act, is before us. This bill was presented by my colleague from Scarborough-Agincourt. Let me say from the start that I have the greatest respect for this member. His integrity is unquestionable. His vigilance is known internationally. He's determined to get to the truth of this matter -- not only he alone, but Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal Party are very much focused on getting to the truth of this matter.

Essentially what this bill is doing is addressing a very sad and critical period in our history -- whether the Conservative Party wants to recognize it or not. The Ipperwash affair touches many aspects, but there remain many serious, difficult and fundamental questions to be answered in this issue. The killing of Dudley George, an unarmed Canadian engaging in an inherent right to protest, was not only devastating to his family -- his brother is here today -- but also demands answers and justice, and is injurious to the aboriginal community at large.

1130

This matter, this issue, has been before the House many times. This incident, as you know, happened in 1995. In fact, this affair has been presented before our native community, the people of Ontario, Canada and the international community at large. This bill calls for an open public inquiry. It does so because there is something rather suspect going on here. We have learned over the past couple of years of political interference prior to the killing of Dudley George. The information, as presented by my colleague, is very, very telling. He has made this available to all members of the House and I hope they have read it; I'm sure they have read it. It establishes a direct link between what happened on that day, the actions of the Ontario Provincial Police and the role of the Mike Harris government.

Basically, what I see is the politicization of the situation. We have a Premier, according to the leaked information, meeting with officers and ordering them what to do. Yet we have officers wanting to do something different. As a matter of fact, the OPP would very much ask for separation of the OPP from the government to let the OPP get on with their work -- but somehow we see a lot of interference here -- and that's the only way we can have some independence in all of this. At least, that's what the evidence is saying. The consequence of this is the innocent killing of Dudley George.

Another important element in all this is it calls into question the many issues of native rights, something we have ignored and need to address. Therefore, the killing of Dudley George, the situation at Ipperwash and the disrespect of native rights surely imposes on all of us to finally bring truth to justice and justice to aboriginal people. It is time to find the truth about the killing of Dudley George. I personally fully -- and Dalton McGuinty and all of us here -- support the calling of a public inquiry.

I was appalled to notice that the member from London-Fanshawe, who represents the government here, a former police officer, refused to even speak on this most important issue. I have been here 18 years, and I can't recall at any time a private member's bill where the government refused to address an issue. This tells me there is something funny going on here.

Our human rights issues in this province are really appalling, and this one tells us exactly where this government is at. Even this policy today, as they go into another election, tells us how they target immigrants and other people. It's a "them and us" kind of a government. It is an extremely sad day in this province, and I fully support my member from Scarborough-Agincourt in putting this bill forward.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I rise in this House chagrined, embarrassed, ashamed of this Legislature. We stand here with responsibilities and we stand here on this particular issue with special responsibilities. I address my remarks not to the members opposite, who have abdicated their responsibilities, but rather to the parliament of public opinion, because I ask every member of the public watching here to do something about this issue. This is a failure -- a failure, as the members nailed to their seats opposite symbolically, without intending, tell us exactly what's at work here.

This is a question of no less than, what kind of province do we live in, in Ontario today, in 2003, eight years after a man has died in the prosecution of democratic rights, for the first time in the history of Ontario, a native Canadian killed in an interaction with our police forces? Yet the Premier's office is involved in this. The Premier's office is implicated. The stunning thing is, as we stand here in this House eight years later, with government backbenchers stuck to their seats, it's clearly possible that the Premier's office in Ontario in 2003 can arrange to elude accountability, even when a man dies. That is stunning. It is a failure of our institutions. You would think the fact that there is evidence -- and there is clear evidence, notations in the police logbooks that talk about the involvement of the Premier's office, the highest office this level of government has to offer, save the symbolism of the Lieutenant Governor.

Yet there is no sense of obligation on the part of the officeholders or the people who prop up that office, the members opposite, to see the rudiments of accountability brought to bear -- there is no conclusion you can draw after eight years of delay, denial and running away from the light -- that the government and the Premiers have something to hide. It reflects so poorly on this House that our other mechanisms -- the Attorney General, who is meant to be independent to a degree to advise the cabinet, has failed in his responsibilities, as have successive attorneys general in this particular job.

This House is meant to be the place to air the grievances, especially such serious grievances as this one: political interference with police action. There can't be too many more important things that the people who will go home from this place tonight want to be able to depend on, that we live in a society where that can't happen. Well, there is evidence -- and each of the members of this House has seen it -- evidence that there has been political interference. Yet it's still possible to have a lack of responsibility taken that would make this continue. There's a document to prove that this was a just occupation, that this is in fact an Indian burial ground. There are judge's comments that say the idea that shots were fired on the part of native protesters was a fiction created after the fact. There is a man, Dudley George, who died innocently -- not an innocent man in the sense of a perfect man, but a man who deserves from this place nothing less than the respect and dignity that's not been accorded to him here right now.

We will all remain guilty of compounded injustice. There is no greater indictment, for a place that sends people here on behalf of others, to not be able to muster up justice. We stand here blocking and interfering until we vote for this resolution on behalf of the dignity and the respect that after eight years Dudley George, Sam George and everyone here deserves.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I had not really thought I was going to speak to this issue today, but I feel compelled that I must.

The George family is here today, seeking what any Canadian citizen or resident of Ontario would consider their right. They are seeking justice, seeking the truth, and hoping that their elected representatives take what they are saying seriously, and do something with it.

The truth cannot ever be suppressed. It can be held back and delayed, but it can never in the end be suppressed. About 100 years ago, in France, there was a gentleman who was wrongly convicted and sent off to the penal colonies of Devil's Island in South America. His name was Mr Dreyfus and his crime, I suppose, was being Jewish. Because they needed a scapegoat, they sent him off. People in France started to rally against that, to see how inherently wrong it was.

1140

It took a great author, a great man, to stand up: Émile Zola. Probably the most famous thing he ever wrote was two words: "J'accuse," "I accuse." He wrote it and he wrote it again and again and again. It was only after Émile Zola personally had to take flight that the people of France started to look and say, "What was wrong? What has gone on here? Did Mr Zola have something to say? Did something need to be looked at?" As you know, Mr Speaker, it took several years after that, but an inquiry was held in that country and Mr Dreyfus was returned from Devil's Island and was subsequently cleared of all wrongdoing. But it took someone to say, "J'accuse."

I don't know whether it's appropriate to say that here in this Legislature, because I personally do not know all the facts as Mr Zola understood them in the case of Mr Dreyfus. But I will tell you that in the last 20 months that I have been in this Legislatur, I have witnessed an awful lot of obfuscation and an awful lot of a government that is trying to hide something. I have seen a Premier try to take Canada's national newspaper to court. I have seen that every time Mr Phillips gets up or other members get up to ask questions, there are no answers forthcoming. I have seen a family on many occasions coming here to ask for something simple and decent, and I have seen nothing happen.

Today I see more of the same. I see the government members opposite sitting in their seats and refusing to say something. Well, I'm going to ask the members opposite who are refusing to say something to go the next step further. If you're not going to say anything and if you're not going to participate in this, I'm going to ask you to at least do the honourable thing: when the vote is called, don't vote. I'm going to ask you not to bring in legions of Tories to vote against something for which you will not speak. I am going to ask that you simply sit in your seat and not stand when it is time to have your name registered. I am asking that you do the right and honourable thing: if you are not going to participate in something the electors have sent you here to do, that you not participate fully, that you let this motion pass even if you are not party to it and that you let the process unwind.

It is extremely unfortunate for the George family what they are going to have to do and the events which are going to unfold in the courts in September. They do not want that. They want this chamber to come to the resolution. They want to know that Dudley George did not die in vain. They want something to happen for all of the people of this province, and particularly for all of the native people who have an unqualified right, in my view, to their lands, an unqualified right to protect their culture, an unqualified right to respect those who have died in Indian burial places. That is what we need to secure in this Legislature. That's what needs to be said. If the members opposite do not wish to participate in such a debate, then I ask them to simply sit in their seats when the vote is called.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Further debate?

The mover of the motion has two minutes to respond.

Mr Phillips: In the strongest terms possible, I'm pleading with the House to agree to this bill.

Let me remind all of us about what happened here. The First Nations had evidence of a burial ground that was not being protected. They moved to protect it. An unarmed man was shot and killed; there was a judge who concluded that. He said that this was an unarmed man who was killed.

I am making the charge that there is overwhelming evidence that there was inappropriate political involvement at the highest level, the Premier's office, around the events at Ipperwash Provincial Park. I'm making that charge on the basis of eight years of gathering evidence.

The people of Ontario have a right to find out the truth about what happened at Ipperwash. The George family has a right to know. In my opinion, the government members are being part of a plan to cover this up. I do not understand how the government members would not take the time to look at the evidence and conclude that we need a public inquiry. This is extremely serious when the Premier's office can be involved in something like this and then the Premier's office can control whether or not the truth ultimately comes out. It's an extremely serious charge I'm making based on the evidence that I have.

I would urge the government members to think for themselves and to support this bill that will make sure we get at the truth about what happened at Ipperwash.

The Deputy Speaker: The time for private members' business has expired.

Pursuant to standing order 96(e), the proceedings of this House now stand suspended until 12 o'clock high noon.

The House recessed from 1146 to 1201.

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will deal first with ballot item number 11. Mr Christopherson has moved private member's notice of motion number 9. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? It is carried.

TRUTH ABOUT IPPERWASH ACT, 2003 /
LOI DE 2003 CONCERNANT
LA VÉRITÉ SUR IPPERWASH

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will now deal with ballot item number 12. Mr Phillips has moved second reading of Bill 46. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1202 to 1207.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please rise and remain standing until named by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Smitherman, George

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing until named by the Clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Clark, Brad

Coburn, Brian

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Johns, Helen

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, AL

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Sampson, Rob

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Young, David

Wood, Bob

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 34; the nays are 38.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

All matters relating to private members' --

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: There is nothing out of order.

Mr Ramsay: Yes, there is something out of order. The member from Don Valley West insulted my colleague.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, order. I did not hear anything; the table did not hear anything. But if any member has something they would like to withdraw, I would give them an opportunity to do it right now.

Hon David Turnbull (Associate Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation): Mr Speaker, I find it regrettable that I used the most logical term, "hypocrite," and I withdraw it.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: All matters relating to private members' business having been completed, I do now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1212 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENT AWARDS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I was pleased to be able to attend the annual Canadian Environment Awards presentation on Monday, June 2, where activist, author, analyst, educator, researcher and consultant Gary Gallon received the citation of lifetime achievement for his dedication to the environment during his career. This honour recognizes exceptional dedication and outstanding long-term contributions to the Canadian environment. Mr Gallon is well known in that field. Along with the winner in the category of climate change, Bob Hunter, Gary founded Greenpeace Canada many years ago in British Columbia.

The group Cows and Fish won in the environmental learning category; Moira Brown of Bolton, Ontario, for restoration and rehabilitation; Herb Hammond of BC, for sustainable living; Tom Maccagno of Alberta, for conservation; and Lynda Lukasik of Hamilton, for environmental health.

Interestingly, one of the finalists was Save the Rouge Valley System, which has been very active in restoring fish and wildlife habitat along the Rouge River. They had received a grant from the Trillium Foundation in recognition of this work. Unfortunately, this grant has been pulled by the Trillium Foundation -- I don't know whether the government has influenced that or not -- supposedly because this organization, Save the Rouge Valley System, is being political. I think this is a wrong decision on the part of the government. That funding should be restored.

I think all these individuals and groups should be congratulated for their work on the environment.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACT

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Each passing day gives us yet more examples of how this government pours public money into private pockets. Using information obtained under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, New Democrats have discovered that the anti-union, anti-worker firm Cintas has quietly doubled the amount they charge the government to clean Brad Clark's hand towels in the Ministry of Labour. Since the contract with Cintas began just over three years ago, the price of these clean towels has increased by over 100%.

The contract with Cintas allows them to jack up the prices any time they want. They seem to be willing to take advantage of the taxpayers of this province by exercising this right whenever they please. Another interesting feature of the Cintas contract is a charge they tack on to the bill known as an "environmental charge" or a "delivery/environmental/energy charge" or sometimes just a "service charge."

This company, mind you, was the defendant in a class action lawsuit in the United States over the existence of these phony, scam charges. Last year, they agreed to settle a lawsuit for US$14 million. Clearly, there is something wrong here.

Why is the government doing business with this company? How many other ministries and government agencies are being taken to the cleaners by Cintas?

I hope the government will truly come clean with the public and taxpayers' dollars, cancel this contract and come clean about any other dealings they have with these gougers.

MAGGIE MALONEY

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): For most 10-year-olds, success may be measured by the number of assignments finding their way to the fridge door in a show of support from Mom and Dad.

Maggie Maloney is a 10-year-old who attends St Thomas Aquinas Elementary school in Keswick. She was thrilled when her essay on heroes was the winning entry in the York Regional Police Chief for a Day contest. She was chief for a day on April 17. Maggie was picked up at her front door by a police cruiser and whisked off to police headquarters in Newmarket. Clad in her tailor-made uniform, she made her way to Chief Armand LaBarge's top-floor office. With one hand on the Bible, Maggie was officially sworn in and saluted by Chief LaBarge. Then it was off to the forensic identification unit for her police identification card.

It was an exciting day and a great experience for Maggie. But Maggie was back on the job on Sunday, May 25, with Chief LaBarge recognizing the first annual Show Me the Way Home campaign in Newmarket. This event was to heighten awareness for children and their families about keeping children safe in our communities.

Now, Maggie hasn't made up her mind yet about her future career. But law enforcement is definitely near the top of the list. Congratulations to Maggie Maloney, who recognized police officers as heroes every day of the week.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): To say that the forest products industry in northern Ontario is going through a crisis seems more and more like a massive understatement. Layoffs at area sawmills are now well over the 1,000-person mark, and almost every day more are being announced. While the US softwood lumber duties and the rising Canadian dollar are two of the key factors in this growing economic disaster, and while some form of substantial mitigation is needed by the federal government, I firmly believe that the provincial government needs to play a far more active role in dealing with this huge blow to our northern economy. Both Natural Resources Minister Ouellette and Northern Development Minister Wilson need to understand that right now, forestry product companies and municipal leaders all across the north are dealing with real concerns about a reduction in wood supply and an increase in fibre costs that can only add to the pressures facing the industry. What is needed now is stability, and the province must at least commit to suspending any government action that could further destabilize supply. Great concern has been expressed about the Room to Grow process and what impact it may have, not only on our present situation, but on hoped-for expansions.

Ministers, we need public assurances that the province will step up to the plate and support our northern industry and its thousands of workers. We cannot stand by and watch this happen, and place the blame elsewhere, when the province clearly has a significant role to play in averting this crisis. You must give our municipal leaders a place at the table, as they will tell you that you must take specific action to help us through this dire situation. Sitting back and watching this unfold is unacceptable, particularly when so much is at stake.

INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN'S FESTIVAL OF MISSISSAUGA

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga Centre): It's my pleasure to stand here today with some of my colleagues from Mississauga to inform the House that the eighth annual International Children's Festival of Mississauga is taking place this week until late in the evening -- well, not too late, anyhow -- of Saturday, June 7.

The Children's Festival brings exceptional artists from around the world to share their gifts with children of all ages, with an emphasis on preschool to grade 8 boys and girls. Last year, more than 15,000 young boys and girls attended this event. The theme for this year is "From Outer Space to Inner Peace," which captures the festival's emphasis on stimulating the imagination and fostering the creativity that we all know lies in the hearts and minds of our young children.

I encourage everyone with children to experience this unique festival in Mississauga's beautiful Living Arts Centre and the surrounding streets of that area. The Mississauga downtown square offers amazing arts and science adventures, with activities both inside and outside. The many free attractions include hiphop and aerial dancing, interactive singing, storytelling and acrobatics. There's going be a steel band there, an art-making tent, a technology workshop and a marketplace.

On behalf of all Mississaugans, I'd like to thank the hard-working festival board, the volunteers and the many others who make this outstanding event possible. I encourage all members here, and those watching, to come and work and play with our children.

1340

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): The Harris-Eves government is starting to bear a startling resemblance to an earlier government. The Harris-Eves government lurched into the fifth year of its mandate this week. Who can forget the last government that went into its fifth year: the Bob Rae NDP government, which clung to power in that fifth year? A lot of comparisons.

The Harris-Eves government has increased the province's debt by $21 billion; that's second only to the Rae NDP government increasing the debt by almost $60 billion. Ernie Eves broke his own Taxpayer Protection Act; the NDP raised taxes more than any other government in provincial history. Ernie Eves had the Magna budget, betraying centuries of parliamentary tradition; the NDP had the social contract, betraying decades of their solidarity with the union movement. Ernie Eves promised a 20% tax cut; he broke that promise. The NDP promised no Sunday shopping; they broke that promise. Ernie Eves promised that selling the 407 wouldn't lead to skyrocketing tolls; he broke that promise. The NDP promised public auto insurance to bring down rates; they broke that promise -- even though, I guess, they're promising that again now. Ernie Eves had a scandal-plagued government with ministerial resignations; the NDP had a scandal-plagued government with ministerial resignations. Experts say Ernie Eves is running a $2-billion deficit this year, and that it may run higher than that; the NDP ran massive deficits too.

As the Harris-Eves government lurches into its fifth year, they're looking more and more like Bob Rae and the NDP every day.

APHASIA AWARENESS MONTH

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): I would like to stand in the House today and acknowledge that June is International Aphasia Awareness Month. Like most people, you've never heard of the word "aphasia," but aphasia is a part of the diagnosis for approximately one third of all stroke survivors. Aphasia is a communications disorder where people have difficulty talking and understanding what is said. It is estimated that in Canada there are over 100,000 aphasics.

The goal of this international observation and event is to raise awareness of aphasia and the resources that are available to aphasics. Public awareness is a critical first step in easing re-entry back into the community for people who are afflicted.

In Ontario, we are fortunate that we have five aphasia centres. I'm very fortunate to have been involved over the last 19 years with the Burlington Aphasia Centre, now known as the Halton Aphasia Centre. Adult aphasics can visit the centre, along with their families, and receive various activities for rehabilitation and support and fellowship.

People are surprised to learn that just under 50% of all those people affected are under the age of 65. I encourage people to get involved and call the president, Bruce Howard, at 905-681-8805, and volunteer for a very great program in our community of Burlington.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): Like a creaking, tottering truck carrying too much baggage and running out of gas, the Tory government dragged itself into its fifth year this week.

It's been five long, dark, terrible years of cronyism, mismanagement and helping themselves and their friends instead of helping the people of Ontario; five years of pulling money out of public schools to fund private schools; five years of bad air; five years of polluted water; five years of lost opportunities in our colleges and universities; five years of failing to achieve our economic potential; five years of second-class treatment of our foreign-trained professionals; five years of talking tough on crime while yanking $181 million out of actually fighting crime; five years of slinking, slithering, slipping toward the two-tier health care this government longs to embrace; five years of robbing our seniors of their dignity with substandard home care and nursing homes; five years of skyrocketing auto insurance rates; five years of shortages of doctors and nurses; five years of stifling the voice of the people with no public hearings; five years of self-serving, partisan advertising wasting taxpayer money; five years of failing to collect corporate taxes; five years of waste on government consultants; five years of a government out of ideas, out of energy and out for itself and its friends.

It's been five long, dark, terrible years. Now it's time for a change in Ontario.

HUNTSVILLE FIRE SAFETY AWARDS

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): Today I rise to recognize this year's recipients of the fire safety awards in the town of Huntsville, part of the great riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka. These awards are given by the fire marshal to recognize outstanding contributions to fire protection and prevention in Ontario.

Robert Bulloch is the owner of McDonald's restaurants in Huntsville and Parry Sound. He has been a long-time supporter of fundraising initiatives for local fire departments. Mr Bulloch's latest venture has resulted in raising $67,000 for Risk Watch, an injury prevention program for children. As a result of his donated time and energy, every primary school in the Huntsville-Lake of Bays area has been supplied with Risk Watch curriculum and resource kits. I congratulate Mr Bulloch and his staff on receiving the fire safety advocate award.

I'd also like to congratulate Ian Byers and his staff at MORE FM 105.5 in Huntsville on receiving this year's fire safety partner award. MORE FM provided on-air support for the fundraising efforts of the Muskoka Injury Prevention Coalition. Through the generous support of MORE FM and other community partners, the coalition raised thousands of dollars for the Risk Watch injury prevention program for children. Over the years, MORE FM has been a strong supporter of the fire department and is always willing to bring lifesaving messages to the community.

The support these people have provided in their community is a major step to guaranteeing a safer environment for local residents. Their hard work and generosity is truly appreciated.

VISITORS

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm sure you'll all join me in greeting the parents of Caitlyn Hanley, one of our pages from Brantford: mom, Charmaine, and Dad, Jeff; and brother, Josh, and sister, Meghan. Both her brother and sister claim they can do a better job than Caitlyn. I look forward to that. We welcome them to the House today.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We welcome our friends who have joined us. It's not a point of order, just like it would be out of order if I were to say that beside them is the Deputy Clerk's family, visiting from Alberta, but I'm sure we wish them well.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

VETERANS
APPRECIATION DAY ACT, 2003 /
LOI DE 2003
SUR LE JOUR DE LA RECONNAISSANCE DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

Mr Bartolucci moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 86, An Act to proclaim Veterans Appreciation Day / Projet de loi 86, Loi proclamant le Jour de la reconnaissance des anciens combattants.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Every June 6, Canadians commemorate the anniversary of the allied invasion of Normandy in 1944, commonly known as D-Day. On this day, 340 Canadians gave their lives and another 574 were wounded. It is appropriate to recognize and pay tribute to Ontario's courageous veterans who fought in World War II and in other conflicts, and who now make a very positive contribution in every community of this province.

This bill would proclaim the first Saturday in June of each year as Veterans Appreciation Day.

PUBLIC SECTOR
ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACT, 2003 /
LOI DE 2003 SUR L'EFFICACITÉ ÉNERGÉTIQUE DU SECTEUR PUBLIC

Mr Cordiano moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 87, An Act to require that public sector organizations conduct an energy audit, submit an energy efficiency plan and implement the plan / Projet de loi 87, Loi exigeant que les organismes du secteur public fassent une analyse énergétique et soumettent et mettent en oeuvre un plan d'efficacité énergétique.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Joseph Cordiano (York South-Weston): This bill requires that all public sector organizations prepare and submit energy efficiency plans to the Minister of Energy after the completion of an energy audit. After the minister approves the energy efficiency plan, the public sector organization is required to implement it.

I believe the time has come for conservation to start to take hold, not only in the public sector, directly influenced or run by the government, but in the broader public sector. We can ill afford in this province to continue to waste energy in the way we do, and I think this bill will see to it that the broader public sector in fact begins a conservation plan that is badly needed in this province, given the energy crisis we're facing.

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The Minister of the Environment.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Welcome back.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Thank you. I could say that to you every day because I think you visit planets we've never been to.

I want to remind everyone that today, June 5, is World Environment Day. It's a time to encourage people everywhere to do their part to protect their air, water and land.

The Ontario government is a leader in environmental protection. We recognize that a well-protected environment is absolutely fundamental to the high quality of life we enjoy in this great province. Our government has taken unprecedented action to protect Ontario's environment. I want to take a few moments to outline some of those actions.

Consider our clean water strategy, which includes the most comprehensive protection in the province's history. This government has spared no effort to ensure that Ontario has and enforces the toughest drinking water standards in the world. In August 2000 we introduced Operation Clean Water. It included the drinking water protection regulation, which gave Ontario its first ever legally enforceable standards for drinking water quality. This regulation also includes strict requirements for testing, treatment and reporting.

To ensure compliance with this regulation, we implemented annual inspections of all municipal water facilities in the province. We have also hired and trained 51 new water treatment plant inspectors and 10 supervisors to do this work.

The release of Commissioner Dennis O'Connor's report of the Walkerton inquiry was an important milestone in this government's efforts to offer clean, safe drinking water to everyone in Ontario. Commissioner O'Connor's report amounts to a new vision of water protection for Ontario. The Ontario government is committed to implementing all 121 of his recommendations.

One of the key O'Connor recommendations is the creation of a Safe Drinking Water Act, which was passed in this House in December 2002. Among other things, this act makes Ontario the first province with the authority to require mandatory licensing and accreditation of laboratories that perform drinking water testing; requires the certification of all drinking water system operators, including those operators that have been grandparented under the old certification regime; and requires an owner's licence for municipal drinking water systems. We've also created the new position of chief drinking water inspector, fulfilling another O'Connor recommendation.

Another important piece of legislation passed by this House is the Sustainable Water and Sewage Systems Act. It will ensure that effective water and sewage services are protecting the health of Ontarians, not just today but for generations to come.

As I said earlier, our comprehensive approach to water is one that protects this important resource from source to tap. And in that regard, source protection is integral to our clean water strategy.

We recently released for consultation the final report of the Advisory Committee on Watershed-Based Source-Protection Planning. The committee has provided us with excellent recommendations on ways to protect the sources of our drinking water. Like the members of this committee, our government recognizes the importance of source protection. We are committed to introducing legislation on source protection planning later this year.

On the same day our government released the committee report, we announced important actions regarding permits to take water, including a six-month moratorium on new permits to take water for the Oak Ridges moraine and the Niagara Escarpment. This moratorium protects two of southern Ontario's most environmentally sensitive areas. It also builds on the excellent work of my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs with respect to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001.

Our focus on water is understandable, but we're also working hard to reduce air pollution and provide the public with information about the air they breathe. Our government continues to be a leader in comprehensive air quality initiatives.

Most recently, we opened a new air monitoring station in Belleville. This brings the number of monitoring stations in Ontario to 37, an increase of seven since 1995. We've increased from six to seven the number of times the provincial air quality index is reported daily. The AQI serves to ensure that vital information is easily available to all citizens. And we are the first province in Canada to include fine particulate matter in our air quality index.

OnAir, the on-line emissions reporting registry, is another way of ensuring public access to information. OnAir provides emissions reports by facilities in the electricity, industrial, commercial, institutional and municipal sectors. The information we gain will help us develop our actions to improve air quality, including our proposed clean air plan to reduce industrial air emissions.

We already have in place stringent caps for the electricity sector. When the caps, which are being progressively phased in, are fully implemented in 2007, they will reduce the limits for smog- and acid-rain-causing emissions by 53% for nitrogen oxides and 25% for sulphur dioxide. This is the equivalent of removing more than one million cars from Ontario roadways.

As well, we've passed a regulation requiring Lakeview generating station to stop burning coal by April 30, 2005, something neither the official opposition nor the third party did when they were in office. Our throne speech also highlighted our commitment to phase out all coal-fired generating stations no later than 2015, a reasonable and reachable goal that will not put the taxpayers at risk.

This government created the Drive Clean program. Significant emissions reductions are being made through Drive Clean, which now covers all municipalities in the "smog zone" from Windsor to the Quebec border. Beginning next year, heavy-duty diesel trucks and buses on Ontario roadways must meet the strictest emissions standards in North America.

We've also strengthened Ontario's Smog Patrol, which targets the most grossly polluting vehicles on Ontario roadways. The Smog Patrol is just one of many ways we're maintaining and enforcing Ontario's environmental laws.

Another is the environmental SWAT team, which is getting tough on polluters in sectors that traditionally have compliance problems or have the potential to significantly affect public health.

Backing our various enforcement measures is a penalty regime that includes the highest fines and longest jail terms in Canada for major environmental offences.

This government is taking decisive action to protect Ontario's environment. In the spirit of the occasion, I encourage all my colleagues to take this opportunity to redouble their efforts to communicate to their constituents what they can do to protect and enhance the environment.

The Speaker: Responses?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'm going to do some communicating. I'm going to communicate with the Minister of the Environment and his government on what it could do and what it is not doing to save the environment in this province.

First of all, we have to recognize that everything this government has done in the field of the environment it has done never in its wildest dreams planning to do so, and to this very day doesn't want to do it. So let's recognize that, that anything that has been done has been because of public pressure because of the kind of media attention that prompts this government to take some action.

Smog is estimated by the Ontario Medical Association to kill over 2,000 people per year prematurely in this province, and yet we see inadequate action being taken on smog issues. Day after day, almost, there are press conferences held in this building by environment and public interest groups describing where this government is falling down on its job and making wise recommendations that the government never seems to follow.

As finance minister, remember, Ernie Eves cut one third of the staff of the Ministry of the Environment and one half of the operating budget of the Ministry of the Environment, placing it in a very vulnerable position and not allowing it to do the job it is supposed to do.

We all remember the Walkerton tragedy, which killed seven people and made over 2,000 people very, very ill. The Walkerton inquiry found that the Harris-Eves government's reckless cuts contributed to this tragedy.

We find out from NAFTA, the NAFTA environmental division, that Ontario is now the third-worst polluting jurisdiction in all of North America.

We know that gridlock costs the GTA some $2 billion a year in productivity, and yet we see a government that has dragged its feet until it's been forced into taking action on transportation issues, particularly as they relate to public transportation. Even today, municipalities receive far less than they used to from the provincial government in terms of support for public transportation.

Things have gotten much worse under the Harris-Eves government. In 2002, there were 27 smog days in Ontario, breaking 2001's record, which was the worst in history. When the Harris-Eves government first took office in 1995, there were 11 smog days.

The Ontario Medical Association, in addition to telling us how many people die prematurely, said 13,000 additional emergency room visits and $1.1 billion in health care costs are incurred as a result of smog.

We have to remember as well that since 1995, Ontario has seen the largest increase in pollution in all of North America. Ontario now imports four times as much hazardous waste from the US as it did when the Harris-Eves government took office in 1995. The Sierra Legal Defence Fund documented more than 10,000 violations of Ontario's water pollution laws between 1995 and 1999. The Harris-Eves government laid only 11 charges.

1400

At present, the Ontario government spends only $5 million per year to assist municipalities in improving waste diversion, funds allocated from the LCBO.

As finance minister, Ernie Eves cancelled all provincial support -- $35 million per year -- for waste diversion and blue box recycling in 1995. In other words, we have a record which is not to be bragged about, but a record of which this government should be ashamed.

We recognize that they've done nothing about source protection of water. In fact, I recall that there were over 700 monitoring stations on streams and rivers in this province. That was reduced drastically to somewhere around 200. So about 500 monitoring stations were removed at the very time we recognized that there were problems in the environment.

The select committee on alternative fuels had dozens upon dozens of excellent recommendations, but virtually none of them have been implemented. This is collecting dust that I have to wipe off this particular report.

The Walkerton report: only half of the recommendations have been implemented so far. I know that the Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation must be very concerned, because he announced the Walkerton inquiry.

I want to say as well that unfortunately this government joined Ralph Klein in fighting against improvement of the situation that would have been dealt with by the Kyoto accord: global warming. This government decided it would align itself with Ralph Klein and the anti-environment group.

Tay River in eastern Ontario: this government overturned a decision and allowed a company to take millions upon millions of gallons of water from the Tay River.

There's nothing being done about energy conservation. They've pulled the grant from the Save the Rouge group, and nutrient management legislation has not been fully implemented.

It's a dismal record, of which the minister should be ashamed.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): It seems as though the minister's head is still in the clouds, up in the Eiffel Tower, from when he was in France, when people back here in Ontario were breathing in smog and prematurely dying from the pollution belching out of his coal plants. Where was he, on taxpayers' money, while hydro rates had gone soaring because of this government's deregulation? He was over strolling around in France and up in the Eiffel Tower, as hard-working people here in Ontario --

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Don't forget Rome.

Ms Churley: I mustn't forget Rome.

Mr Agostino: And London.

Ms Churley: That's right -- and London. He was strolling around in these countries, partly at taxpayers' expense, while people over here were suffering from those high, spiralling, out-of-control hydro rates and breathing in increasingly polluted air from those dirty, polluting coal plants.

The minister has the nerve to stand up here today and say that they are acting on the recommendations from the Walkerton inquiry. Very recently the government admitted that they've only completed 16 of 121 recommendations from these reports. Despite the recommendations from this inquiry and despite Justice O'Connor saying that this government bore some responsibility for what happened in Walkerton, we've recently heard the minister and the member from Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound once again say, "No, it's not our fault. We had nothing to do with it. It was just the Koebel brothers."

Here we have a minister standing up today and bragging about having completed 16 of 121 recommendations. Still, to this day, the government clearly has not learned its lesson that public water testing labs and public investments are key components of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Another thing I want to point out again is that the Toronto Star recently revealed that there were 533 bad water reports from drinking water systems throughout the province last year. The environment ministry reports that 40% of water systems in Ontario are out of compliance. This is after Walkerton, and still, three years later, we have those 40% of water systems out of compliance. While the minister was running around in France, Rome and London, here we are back in Ontario having to deal with the possibility of another Walkerton because this government has not acted fast enough.

On top of that, the government failed to spend over $200 million in municipal infrastructure funds targeted for water projects.

We obtained a copy of a cabinet document showing that the minister intended to delay implementing the nutrient management regulations until possibly 2016. That's for 97% of farms in this province. This is after Walkerton. That would be 16 years later.

Minister, you have failed to follow through on your commitment to implement Walkerton. Don't stand up there and say that you have. In the 2001-02 budget the government set aside $200 million in municipal infrastructure projects in OSTAR and the millennium partnership initiatives. The ministry officials confirmed that over half of that money was intended for municipal water projects but only $29 million of the $200 million was actually spent, leaving over $100 million in budgeted money for municipal water projects unspent for that year. I guess it must be the red tape. They bragged so much about cutting red tape, yet they said that they withheld this money because some of the municipalities were having trouble fulfilling the requirements in the application forms.

On air: on World Asthma Day my leader, Howard Hampton, and I made an announcement that we were setting up a puffer bank for used asthma puffers to show the impact of the Conservative government's polluting policies.

In Ontario, 2,030 people will die prematurely from dirty air, including 530 in Toronto and 360 in the rest of the GTA. That's according to the Ontario Medical Association's latest figures. Yet we've called on the government repeatedly to bring in intense conservation programs.

As my leader, Howard Hampton, recently announced through our Public Power document, we will close down the coal-fired plants by 2007. Part of the way to do this is to get serious about conservation and efficiency. We announced a 20-20 plan based on a successful plan in California that works, that would help people conserve and be more efficient in their use of energy.

The government has done nothing. In fact, the conservation plan we put into place when we were in government went out the door. This government has nothing to brag about on World Environment Day. On the contrary, they should be ashamed of themselves.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): My question is to the Deputy Premier. Ontario Power Generation cannot be a money-laundering operation for unwanted expenses of ministers of the Harris-Eves government. Yet that is exactly what has happened with this recently published report --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We're going to have to watch our language. The word "money-laundering" borders on it. I would ask the member to kindly try and think about what he's saying.

Mr Bryant: Withdrawn.

Look, there are various ways to describe what has happened, but money that ought to have been disclosed through freedom of information, that ought to have been paid out of the consolidated revenue fund, that ought to have been claimed by the Minister of Energy, was funnelled through Ontario Power Generation.

There are a lot of problems with that. The first one is, the minister is keeping expenses from the public. You cannot hide expenses from the public. You know, when you funnel it through a government enterprise corporation like OPG, that's exactly what happens, because there's no way to get access to that information.

So I say to you, Minister, is it all right for Premier Eves and the Eves government to funnel money through government enterprise corporations as the Minister of Energy did last summer?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I'll refer that to the Minister of the Environment.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I think the trip you're speaking about was a trip with respect to Scotland and London from Paris and Rome. The trip was organized, endorsed and recommended by OPG. OPG paid for ground transportation. I know that you personally talked to OPG today and OPG told you it was an expense for ground transportation.

Further to that, the nub of the problem is this: I didn't file any expenses for the government to pay for the trip in Paris at all. Nothing; not a meal, not a hotel, not a bagel, or a can of Tropicana orange juice. The problem you're faced with is this: you think somehow that, in your language, as a shareholder of OPG organizing the trip, we have reached reptilian, sewer-dwelling levels in this Legislature.

1410

Mr Bryant: I say to the minister, because I take it you're going to answer these questions, is it your position that it is OK to submit this kind of expense through Ontario Power Generation, and have you submitted any other such expenses through Ontario Power Generation when you were the Minister of Energy?

Hon Mr Stockwell: Yes, I think ground transportation on a trip is acceptable, organized by OPG. And yes, you know full well I incurred and submitted no other expenses to OPG.

I would also note that the story in the Globe and Mail today, as torqued as it was, didn't indicate to the people who were reading it that not one thin dime was expensed to the government by me for my family that was on my trip. I take great exception to seeing members quoted in the paper suggesting that if you're going to go on a two-week trip as a minister of the crown, you can't take your family but not charge the government. This is absolutely patently absurd. You've got to crawl out of this world you're living in. The bar you're setting is so high, not a soul on this earth could clear it.

Mr Bryant: The minister doth protest too much. I am not asking about the expenses of your family. I am asking about Ontario Power Generation.

It is not OK for a minister of the crown to have a company that makes money in the energy sector have an expense account for the minister. It is not OK for the Attorney General to have a law firm pick up the expenses of him travelling across Europe, and he would never do that. It is not OK for a housing minister to submit expenses to a developer for ground transportation on a business trip to Europe. It is not OK for the government of Ontario to have a minister submit expenses for his business to Ontario Power Generation, and if you think that is OK, I would like to know, what other times did you submit expenses through Ontario Power Generation, and do you continue to submit expenses through government enterprise corporations today?

Hon Mr Stockwell: You know what? I answered that question. This was it, the only time; I never have again.

This is just how absurd we've become in this place. He's comparing a housing minister and a developer paying for ground transportation. News flash: as the Minister of Energy, you are the single shareholder for Ontario Power Generation, the single shareholder. The Minister of Housing doesn't own the development company. It's just patently absurd, and I am taking great offence because I know the situation is simply this: when you file expenses, you're ratcheted and beat up. When you don't file expenses, you're ratcheted and beat up. Yes, this is an acceptable expenditure, organized by OPG, meetings operated by OPG, attended by myself, staff, and the deputy minister. This is a seriously flawed line of questioning.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Bryant: This is a seriously flawed line of reasoning for the former Minister of Energy. I'm sorry I have to ask this question, but I have to ask this question. I take it you submitted expenses through Ontario Power Generation. Did you submit any invoices or expenses to any other corporation that you had dealings with during the European business trip? Would that be OK, Minister? Did you do that or not?

Hon Mr Stockwell: No, Mr Speaker.

Mr Bryant: Again, I say to the Minister of Energy, my question is not about the business trip itself and the question is not about the attendance of your family. The member said that he paid for those expenses, and I take the honourable member at his word.

However, that's not what the minister told a member of the press gallery in January of this year. The press secretary to the Premier of Ontario today said that when she was press secretary to you, she was told to inform this journalist that you in fact did not bring your family along. Were you telling the truth then, or are you telling the truth now?

Hon Mr Stockwell: You know, this is just insane. I am now in a situation with a member across the floor making an allegation that he heard from a reporter that somebody in my office was told to say something that wasn't true. That is such a stretch. That is completely inaccurate. I would never, ever in my political life tell somebody to go and tell a reporter something that I knew was factually incorrect.

I have great respect for all honourable members. I have respect for you. I am an honourable member. My staffer didn't say that. I believe the member of the gallery may have been confused -- as he was confused this afternoon at 12 o'clock when he went on the air and said I spent $27,000 alone in Europe when the $27,000 included me, staff and the deputy minister. He confused that.

Let's get it together. He possibly could have been confused about the others.

Mr Bryant: Minister, there remains a serious problem with respect to public disclosure of information of expenses involving government enterprise corporations not subject to the freedom of information act. We don't know whether OPG paid for items for you as energy minister in addition to this ground transportation. That is totally inappropriate.

So my question to you as a minister is -- and it's not just with respect to OPG and Hydro One; it's with respect to all government enterprise corporations not subject to freedom of information act requests: will the government release all expenses submitted through those corporations that involve a minister of the crown? Will you release --

Interjection.

Mr Bryant: All the ministers doth protest too much.

You know very well that there are monies and expenses being funnelled through government enterprise corporations to avoid public disclosure. You know it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for St Paul's.

Mr Bryant: So my question is, Minister, so that you can assure the public that in fact --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member take his seat. The last warning for the Minister of Energy. If he yells out one more time, he's gone.

Sorry, to the member for St Paul's.

Mr Bryant: So that you can assure the public, Minister, that in fact all expenses that are put through OPG, Hydro One and otherwise -- and I seem to remember you having a lot of problems with some expenses involving Hydro One a year ago. You had a big problem with outrageous expenses from the CEO for Hydro One. So I would think that you would care about this.

So my question is this: will you disclose the expenses, currently undisclosable to the public, that go through government enterprise corporations? Will you do that?

Hon Mr Stockwell: I say to the member opposite, without any equivocation whatsoever, the only expense incurred by OPG was for ground transportation. Never was there expense incurred by OPG on my behalf for any other expense on any other trip for any other purpose. I will tell you, that is the absolute, categoric position. I know the member spoke to OPG today and that OPG told you exactly the same thing.

The Speaker: New question?

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): To the Minister of Environment: Minister, you can be as indignant and as histrionic as you want to be, but excuse us for being skeptical over here, because this is the second time we know of that your hand has been caught in the cookie jar. You were forced to pay back over $3,000 in bar tabs, expenses that you and your staff didn't declare before. You declared it only after it was in the media.

1420

What makes it even worse, last summer, when your government's privatization and deregulation scheme was sending hydro rates soaring all across Ontario and when our coal-fired plants were belching deadly smog into the air, where were you? What was the minister doing? You were living the high life on the boulevards of Paris and Rome and sending the bills to hydro ratepayers. That's right. Amazingly, Ontario Power Generation picked up thousands of dollars worth of these expenses.

Minister, I consider this a gift to you from OPG. I want to know, why did you not declare this to the Integrity Commissioner of this province?

Hon Mr Stockwell: First of all, on this trip, I charged two types of charges: my flight and my hotel room. I charged not a meal, not an orange juice, not a bagel -- my flights and my hotel room, nothing more.

The fact is this: it never crossed my mind that anyone would think ground transportation would be a gift. The minute I saw it in the story today, I phoned the Integrity Commissioner's office and asked them to look into it. They said, "Thank you very much. We will investigate to determine if it's a gift." Personally, I think it's a stretch to suggest that ground transportation is a gift.

The Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Among the many problems here is that Mittelstaedt indicates that the minister says he decided to pick up his hotel cost during the six-night stay in Paris because there was so little business being conducted.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I never said that.

Mr Kormos: Well, the Mittelstaedt article indicates the minister says he picked up hotel costs. It also says that the only expense OPG paid was the cost of a van rental during the stay in Paris, yet OPG says they spent $5,000 to $10,000; $5,000 to $10,000 is far in excess of van rental, even in the city of Paris, for but one week. Minister, why is there that discrepancy in the report of the facts?

Hon Mr Stockwell: Mr Mittelstaedt totally torqued and fabricated that story -- absolutely torqued and fabricated. I never at any time said the agenda was so skinny. That is torqued and fabricated. What I said was that because we couldn't get a connecting flight to Rome, the stay was prolonged. I said that I will pay for the hotel and all other expenses, as any honourable member would do. Not a nickel was spent by the taxpayer on my children or wife, who were attending.

Mr Mittelstaedt torqued and prevaricated to get a story he had been working on for six months, because all he could get out of it was a ground transportation issue. He talked to 15 people, asking them, "Did OPG or did anyone else pay for these?" Fifteen people said no. He spent six months on that story. He had to file something. He torqued it to the highest order.

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Labour): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If I may, just quickly, I have a concern with regard to the last question of the member for St Paul's. In his last question, he stated that regularly members of cabinet are using funds from government agencies for other purposes. With the greatest of respect, Mr Speaker, it states very clearly in the standing orders that you can't make allegations of that nature against another member. I would ask you if you can check the Instant Hansard and see what he said. I know he's an honourable member and he will withdraw it. It was emotional, but he will withdraw it.

The Speaker: We will confer with the table quickly.

I thank the member. No one heard that, if anybody did say that. We will be able to get the Hansard, which isn't quite this instant. He would withdraw it if he can, at any time.

We will listen very carefully. We're in very emotional territory here when we get into these circumstances. I would ask all members to watch very carefully.

I will say this: I'm going to be on the edge of my seat listening, as is the table, and we'll listen to the best of our ability to make sure nothing is said that is unparliamentary, and if it is, we will act very quickly.

The member for Niagara Centre.

Mr Kormos: If the minister could only feign sincerity as well as he feigns indignation, his career would be established.

There are some serious problems here in terms of the numbers. OPG is reported as saying they spent $5,000 to $10,000 on your junket to France, England, Scotland and Italy. You insist that you only accepted money for one week of transportation while in Paris during a period of time that you regarded as vacation time, such that you paid your own hotel bills.

You have accused Mr Mittelstaedt, a veteran newsperson, a veteran journalist, of prevarication. The facts in his article are a serious indictment and cause serious concerns. I put to you, Minister, in view of the controversy that now exists and your statements regarding Mittelstaedt and his prevarication, that there is a serious need for a thorough investigation into this matter. Will you step aside while that inquiry takes place?

Hon Mr Stockwell: This is bordering on Fellini-like. You've got to think you're in a Fellini movie at this point in time. I never said --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Stockwell: They provided ground transportation in Paris and in Rome. I told you that's what they supplied, and that's what they paid for -- nothing more, nothing less. If you believe there was anything inappropriate about that -- I phoned the Integrity Commissioner's office and asked them to investigate. They said I phoned in a timely fashion, considering the story was in the paper today. I think we should all give the Integrity Commissioner, the Honourable Justice Coulter Osborne, who had approved these expenses previously I might add, the opportunity to review this before we start hanging members in this Legislature from the gallows because one reporter who provided no facts in this story decided this was the approach to take. I would give you the equal break with respect to Justice Coulter Osborne as I gave the member from Windsor with respect to the Purolator package. Let's see what the Integrity Commissioner says, because I believe categorically, without debate, that this is a stretch of epic, stilted proportions.

PROTECTION FOR
HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Minister of Health. New Democrats have called on you for a full public inquiry into SARS and for whistle-blower protection to ensure that health care providers do not suffer any reprisals from their employers if they come forward.

On Tuesday, you took exception to that, and you argued that if there was any evidence that an employer was intimidating or threatening a health care worker, to let you know and you would stop it right away. Virginia Wooland was an employee of the Toronto-Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Centre. At a press conference at the centre on February 10, 2003, she asked you a question about long waiting lists for cancer surgery. She was fired three days later. Her dismissal letter specifically references the incident of February 10, the same day she asked you a question at a press conference. I would like to know what you have done about her employer, Cancer Care Ontario, an agency of your government, and what have you done to get her job back?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): In reference to your question, I want to state that under subsection 95(4) of the Health Protection and Promotion Act, "No action or other proceeding shall be instituted against a person for making a report in good faith in respect of a communicable disease or a reportable disease in accordance with part IV."

The honourable member might remember that in the early stages of the SARS outbreak, I designated, as I have the power to do under the act, that SARS be a communicable disease as well as a reportable and a virulent disease. So the protections she seeks for health care workers are in fact statutorily in place.

Ms Martel: The question was: what have you done about Virginia's employer, and what have you done to get her job back? You stood in this House Tuesday and took great exception to the question raised by my leader that somehow a health care worker in this province would suffer reprisal from an employer. That's what happened -- an employer, I remind you, that your ministry provides full funding to. When your press secretary, Mr Paul Cantin, was asked about this incident on March 8, he said, "The minister could not comment on a personnel issue." I asked you about this matter on Tuesday, outside this Legislature, and what you were going to do to get Virginia her job back. You said you didn't know anything about this matter.

Minister, if this can happen to Virginia Wooland, it can happen to any health care worker who dares to raise concerns about health care in the province. We have workers today who are here from the Scarborough General Hospital, front-line heroes in the battle against SARS. Given what's happened to Virginia and your complete lack of responsibility and your complete lack of action to do anything about her case, how can they be guaranteed they're not going to be fired if they come forward with concerns about SARS?

1430

Hon Mr Clement: She would be the first person standing up if I interfered with an employer-employee relationship with an arm's-length agency. She would be the first one standing in her place, demanding my immediate resignation and probably a public inquiry on top of that. So she speaks out of both sides of her mouth, I must say.

When she asks what protections I can give to our health care workers who are required under the HPPA to do their job, I cited subsection 95(4) of the HPPA, which I am duty-bound, as the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, to uphold and enforce, and she has my commitment that I will do my job. That is the answer to her question.

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): My question is to the government House leader. I heard you say it, and maybe you misspoke, but you could tell us what you meant by it: I heard you say in answer to the question in this House just now that the Honourable Justice Coulter Osborne, the Integrity Commissioner, initially approved of your expenses.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Yes. Travel expenses.

Mr Bryant: Could you explain that? Could you elaborate on that? And would you disclose to the House, or otherwise to the public, this said approval?

Hon Mr Stockwell: I was speaking about the expenses that were filed during the process of this trip to Justice Coulter Osborne. All the government expenses were filed to him. He approved of all the expenses and signed off on them, saying they were appropriate and properly submitted and they were appropriately and properly repaid.

Mr Bryant: I remind the member -- he will know, as government House leader and otherwise -- that the Accountability for Expenses Act (Cabinet Ministers and Opposition Leaders), introduced with much fanfare last year, has a pretty gaping loophole in it in that the act requires reviewable expenses, disclosure of expenses that are expensed through the consolidated revenue fund. Of course, Ontario Power Generation expenses would not be through the consolidated revenue fund. We would never know that that expense had taken place, had you not told us and, in addition, that the expense was disclosed or the expense was incurred in the performance of a ministerial duty.

There is no way to ensure that government enterprise corporation expenses incurred by a minister will be disclosed. So my question is, and you may want to refer it to the minister responsible, will the government agree to fill this loophole to ensure that government enterprise corporation expenses are in fact covered under this bill?

Hon Mr Stockwell: Chair of Management Board?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): If the member will recall, as we went through the review of the expenses for all members, all the cabinet ministers and certainly the Leader of the Opposition, one of the things I said at the time, and it's quite true and continues to be so, was that we continue to review the rules from time to time with the Integrity Commissioner. This is something that is a constant process; it's a process that continues. It did not end at the time we brought in the rules. So we do continue to review them.

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): My question is for my honourable friend the Minister of Transportation. Early in the new year, I consulted with the 11 municipal councils in Waterloo-Wellington, challenging them to look to the promise of the future and highlight for me their transportation priorities for the next five years and beyond. On April 10, municipal representatives from my riding and I met with the minister to discuss what we are calling the Waterloo-Wellington transportation action plan. On May 1, at the first available opportunity, I informed the House about our transportation issues, which include implementing the corridor study of Highways 7 and 8 between Kitchener and Stratford; a new four-lane Highway 7 between Kitchener and Guelph; assistance for the county of Wellington to rebuild Highway 24 from Guelph to Cambridge; a repaired and upgraded Highway 6 from Fergus to Mount Forest; and Waterloo region's light rail transit initiative and other important transportation projects.

Could the minister inform the House what action the government is taking to assist us in Waterloo-Wellington with these transportation challenges?

Hon Frank Klees (Minister of Transportation): I'm pleased to do that. I want to commend the member from Waterloo-Wellington for his very strong advocacy on the part of his constituents.

I did, indeed, meet with representatives of the municipality as arranged by the honourable member. I'm pleased to report to him, as well as to his constituents, that in response to that meeting and the various issues that were brought forward to us at that time, we will, in fact, be completing the planning for a new Highway 7 from Kitchener to Guelph to relieve congestion by providing additional access to Highway 401 through its connection with the Hanlon Expressway.

I can also report to the member that we'll be widening Highway 8 between Conestoga expressway and Fergus Avenue and designing the next phase of the widening from Fergus Avenue southeasterly to Grand River. In addition to that, a number of the initiatives that were brought forward will be taken into consideration and put into our planning process.

This member is doing an outstanding job for his constituents in advocating for transportation issues. I just want to say that.

Mr Arnott: I thank the minister for his response. It's exciting to note that in recent days, work commenced to resurface Highway 89 between Mount Forest and Conn and repair two bridges across the Saugeen River, a $5.4 million job.

This is hopefully the first of many responses to our Waterloo-Wellington transportation action plan, and I would expect that members of the House would agree that improving our highway system is only one part of the solution in reducing gridlock, creating jobs and improving our quality of life.

Will the minister update the House on actions he is taking to reduce gridlock and continue to improve the safe movement of people and goods in our Waterloo-Wellington area?

Hon Mr Klees: I'm glad to do that. The fact is, under our made-in-Ontario Smart Growth strategy, our government has made some long-term commitments to transit, as well as transportation -- some $13.5 billion committed over the next 10 years to deal with the kind of issues that the member has brought to our attention. In fact, last August, as part of our Golden Horseshoe Transit Investment Partnerships, we provided Waterloo some $5.3 million to help expand bus service and to make improvements in their transit facilities. I point out to the member that this is in addition to the $2.9 million allocated to Waterloo over the last two years to help replace and refurbish transit vehicles.

I also want to assure the member and his constituents that based on our long-term commitment to transit in this province, his constituents, the area of Waterloo and, in fact, right across the Golden Horseshoe, there will be tremendous opportunities for implementing transit-related initiatives in this province.

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): The question is to the government House leader. I asked you before about submission of all travel expenses to the Honourable Coulter Osborne. I understand you said that you submitted the government expenses. My question is, just so I'm very, very clear, did you submit the Ontario Power Generation expense to the Integrity Commissioner, and did he approve that OPG expense?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I never had it, I never submitted it, so Mr Coulter Osborne would never approve it. I did phone Mr Coulter Osborne this morning, considering the story that was in the paper, and asked him to adjudicate on it. His staff said to me, "Thank you for phoning. We will review it and get back." That's what I did.

Mr Bryant: The clear implication was that you said the Honourable Coulter Osborne approved all expenses. In any event, the Integrity Commissioner, I take it, is now going to speak to this issue of whether or not the OPG expense was --

Hon Mr Stockwell: Yes.

Mr Bryant: Fine. Look, I'm not going to make any apologies at all as a member of the opposition for asking these questions, and you'd be doing the same thing if you were sitting over here.

1440

I say to the minister again, we clearly have a loophole in this bill, and to avoid any other such future excursions of this nature, I say to you in this Legislature, it would be best for the people of Ontario and for the government of Ontario if we filled this loophole. I understand the minister responsible says you're reviewing these things. You're always reviewing these things. There's clearly a loophole. I ask the minister responsible, and he'll have to be referred to you through the House leader, will you fill this loophole? Specifically, Minister, will you ensure that government enterprise corporation expenses such as this, currently reviewed by the Integrity Commissioner, become subject to full disclosure under your much-heralded bill, the Cabinet Ministers' and Opposition Leaders' Expense Review and Accountability Act. Will you change the bill to fit the loophole --

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

Hon Mr Stockwell: What I think we should do is let Justice Coulter Osborne review the situation and do his job. Now I can see how we can have a difference of opinion. If I somehow misspoke myself that gave you that impression, I apologize. It was always the expenses I was speaking about that were approved. But I will say this: as honourable members in this place, you've asked me a direct question, "What were these expenses?" and I've given you a direct answer. They were all ground transportation in Rome and Paris. I will stand by that statement at any time.

I asked Justice Coulter Osborne to review it. I took this trip and charged only flight and hotel. My children and wife -- not a thin dime was charged to the government. If you know, why would I not charge a hotel and food and all that other expense that you have on a trip, but somehow if I thought this was inappropriate, charge that? There's an inconsistency here. I'm saying to you opposite, why don't we allow Justice Coulter Osborne, the Integrity Commissioner, to review this and adjudicate? I honestly believe that Mr Coulter Osborne will come back and say --

Mr Bryant: So I shouldn't ask?

Hon Mr Stockwell: I'm not saying you don't ask. I'm just saying that I think he'll come back and say, "We may just have a tempest in a teapot."

SENIORS' MONTH

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question today is for the minister responsible for seniors. Last week you introduced the Mandatory Retirement Elimination Act, an important piece of legislation that represents a major step forward in strengthening Ontario's human rights protections for all seniors. The introduction of this bill is particularly fitting because June is Seniors' Month here in Ontario. June is a time to celebrate and recognize the important role our seniors have played in the growth of our great province.

Minister, given the continuing contributions of our growing seniors populations, I'm sure seniors across Ontario would like to know the theme of this year's Seniors' Month and why it is important for all Ontarians to recognize and support our seniors every month of the year.

Hon Carl DeFaria (Minister of Citizenship, minister responsible for seniors): I thank the member for his question. As Ontario's minister responsible for seniors, I'm very proud of the enormous contributions Ontario's 1.5 million seniors have made and continue to make to our great province. Seniors' Month has been celebrated in Ontario for over 20 years, and I am pleased our government not only continues to support this tradition, but actively promotes Seniors' Month activities throughout the Ontario seniors' secretariat.

This year's Seniors' Month theme "Footsteps to Follow" highlights the wonderful example seniors have set and continue to set in sharing, learning and leading. Seniors' Month is a time to honour the sacrifices and contributions of men and women who have built this province and who continue to contribute to the quality of life we enjoy.

Mr Dunlop: Like most other members of this Legislature, I would like to recognize the important role seniors play in my own constituency, the riding of Simcoe North. I like to point out that usually at least once a year I have seniors' seminars in the town of Midland and in the city of Orillia. They're well attended by over 1,000 seniors at those two events. I think it's important that all members of this House provide that type of venue for our seniors because there's a lot of information available to seniors that they like to receive as well.

Minister, please tell me what is available from your ministry to help me, other MPPs and people in my constituency who wish to actively celebrate and promote Seniors' Month?

Hon Mr DeFaria: I encourage each member here today to help celebrate Seniors' Month by hosting or attending events that recognize older Ontarians in their respective constituencies. Each member will receive a communication package from my ministry to promote Seniors' Month events within their own communities. My ministry has also produced a poster and other materials that members can use and access to promote Seniors' Month in newsletters and local newspapers. Seniors' Month event listings from across the province will be posted and accessible on the Ontario seniors' secretariat Web site. I also encourage members to take advantage of the availability of a guide to programs and services for seniors in Ontario, a comprehensive listing of seniors' services offered by different levels of government and the community.

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): To the Minister of the Environment: today's article revealing facts around your two-week junket in Europe wasn't written by a Jayson Blair of the New York Times; it was written by Martin Mittelstaedt, a respected, long-time Canadian journalist. He reports that your staff person indicated that the OPG money was only to rent a van for use around Paris. He reports that it was during the Paris stay that you decided to pick up six nights of your hotel tab because there was so little business to be done that it in fact was a vacation. The article also states that OPG indicates that it spent $5,000 to $10,000 to subsidize your junket to Europe. Five to ten thousand dollars is at great variance with the cost of a van for one week in the city of Paris.

You've accused Mr Mittelstaedt of prevarication. You've called Mr Mittelstaedt a liar. In view of the discrepancies between your story and the reportage of Mr Mittelstaedt, will you stand aside so that this matter can be inquired into to determine which of you is telling the truth?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I think he should look at the story very carefully. I think it's very revealing. I think you would do very well to read it. The quote that you're attributing to me, "Because we had a prolonged stay in Paris we arranged meetings that were a little sparse, so I decided it was better I paid them" -- I didn't say that. I said that because we had trouble connecting to Rome, and extended the trip, that's when we decided to pay.

Mr Mittelstaedt wrote what he wrote. All I can tell you is the rationale for what was done. I didn't file expense claims in Paris. The government didn't pay.

When you started accosting me earlier, your claim was about charging the government inappropriately. Coulter Osborne reviewed them and suggested a number of them shouldn't be repaid. Now I don't file expenses, you don't have claims and I'm supposed to stand up here and defend the fact that I didn't spend any money. This is what is Felliniesque about this place.

Mr Kormos: Scotland; London, England; Paris, France; Rome, Italy; the Spanish steps; the Trevi fountain -- a week of leisure. And while electricity consumers in this province are paying skyrocketing prices, OPG subsidizes your junket to the tune of $5,000 to $10,000. Your staff person says that OPG paid for but one week of van in Paris. Five to ten Gs buys a whole lot more, even in Paris, than the rental of a van for a week. You've accused Mittelstaedt of lying. You called him a prevaricator. You were very clear about that. You indicate that he's prevaricating not just once or twice, but thrice.

Somebody's not telling the truth. Minister, if you're interested in the determination as to what is the truth, will you stand aside so that this matter can be inquired into?

1450

Hon Mr Stockwell: There were 12 meetings in 14 days on that trip. I met with a significant number of agencies and groups in Europe, in Rome and Paris. The meetings took place at the behest of OPG. I can tell you that OPG paid for ground transportation and only ground transportation. I charged not a meal, not a drink, not a muffin, not an orange juice to the taxpayers of the province of Ontario -- nothing. The fact is simply this: if there is anything inappropriate about this, I'd like to hear from Justice Coulter Osborne.

I will be very frank with you. You hold Mr Mittelstaedt in high esteem; I don't. I hold Justice Coulter Osborne to a far higher level of impartiality and believability. My suggestion to you is that we see what the Honourable Justice Coulter Osborne, who was the second-highest presiding officer of the Court of Appeal in this province, has to say, because if it came to Mittelstaedt or Osborne, I'd pick Osborne.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Deputy Premier. It has to do with the situation at Ipperwash that demands a public inquiry.

There is strong evidence of inappropriate political involvement in what should have been a police matter, and the political involvement includes the then Premier. The George family launched a civil case because the government consistently refused to call a public inquiry. Now the George family has said they would drop the civil case and avoid a three-month trial if the government would call a public inquiry. Recognizing the seriousness of this issue -- that is, political involvement at the most senior level of the province of Ontario in a policing operation -- and recognizing that the George family have agreed that they would drop the civil case if a public inquiry is called, will you, Deputy, today agree to call a public inquiry?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I will refer the question from the honourable member to the Attorney General.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): As the member opposite knows, there are outstanding civil matters in front of the courts at this time. We have done everything to bring those matters forward. The subjects that are being considered in the civil action would be the same that would be considered in a public inquiry. The trial is set to begin on September 8, not too far in the distant future, and therefore I think that it's incumbent on us to allow that court to go through its process. A decision with regard to a public inquiry can be made after that.

Mr Phillips: I would just say to the public: this is a matter of extreme seriousness; evidence of the Premier saying on the day of the shooting that he wanted the occupiers out of the park within 24 hours; the police saying, "That's not what we want. We want more time."

Nothing could be more serious than a charge of political involvement by the Premier with the police. The George family don't want this civil case. Yes, you've done everything you can. You spent $3 million of taxpayer money fighting the George family, and we will see another $2 million -- the former Premier himself, over $1 million of taxpayer money, fighting the George family. The government lawyers called poor Sam George "a terrorist" at these civil cases. The family has said, "We will drop the civil case," but they want assurance that you will call a public inquiry. They've got absolutely no faith in your government calling the public inquiry, because for eight years you have refused to do it.

I say to you again, Attorney General, this is a travesty and an attack on a family. The government should be doing the decent thing and calling a public inquiry. I say again to you, will you do the decent thing today? Will you agree finally to call an appropriate public inquiry so that the people of Ontario can find the truth about what happened at Ipperwash?

Hon Mr Sterling: We too are concerned, and feel for the Dudley George family as well.

As I mentioned before in my previous response, this matter is close to coming to trial. During that process the Dudley George family have had the opportunity to examine the evidence, some of which is not characterized by the statements made by my colleague opposite. But we will let the trial occur, and then, of course, a public inquiry can take place.

SARS

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): My question is for the Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. There have been a great many heroes during the SARS outbreak -- nurses, doctors and public health officials, to name but a few -- who have worked tirelessly, night and day, to protect the health of the people of Toronto, but there have been many unsung heroes as well.

Will the minister please inform the House about the important role that the Toronto-area community care access centres have played during the SARS outbreak?

Hon Dan Newman (Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'd like to thank the hard-working member for Waterloo-Wellington for his question today.

The member is absolutely correct. The Toronto-area CCACs continue to play an important role in helping us to deal with the impact of the SARS outbreak. The staffs of these community care access centres deserve our thanks for their dedication and hard work during this difficult time.

CCACs helped us alleviate pressure on our hospital system by coordinating patient transfers and discharges, so that we could reopen emergency rooms and restart surgeries. They also monitored hospitals and helped to develop screening protocols for the community and home care sectors.

They are instrumental in our response to this outbreak and should be recognized for their contributions.

Mr Arnott: I think we're all very pleased to hear that the community care access centres are making such a profound difference for so many people, in light of the SARS problem. I personally know how dedicated and hard-working the CCAC professionals are, and the staffs of the Waterloo and Wellington-Dufferin CCACs at home are outstanding examples.

I'd like to ask the associate minister what kind of contributions CCACs outside the GTA have made in the effort to contain the spread of SARS.

Hon Mr Newman: CCACs across Ontario have undertaken a number of measures to ensure the health and safety of those who are receiving health care at home as well as those in long-term-care facilities. In fact, across Ontario, CCACs are closely monitoring the status and the categories of hospitals affected by SARS and are working out plans for patient transfers and discharges accordingly. CCACs are also establishing the extent of screening protocols for caregivers, staff, clients and visitors, depending on their region. They're all working hard to ensure that those needing a transfer to a long-term-care facility get one of their top choices and get that choice as quickly as possible.

I'm proud to say that the Ernie Eves government is committed to helping to provide even better home care across Ontario through record investments in this sector.

I once again want to thank our home care professionals for all their hard work and dedication.

HEALTHY FUTURES PROGRAM

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture's provincially funded program paid 67% of the cost to upgrade wells and protect groundwater from surface water contamination. The program started as a result of the tragedy at Walkerton, to provide financial assistance for well decommissioning or upgrading.

Well, surprise, surprise: the funding has run dry and waiting lists for this program are getting longer and longer.

Minister, you've been called upon to allow the transfer of funds from the decommissioning fund into the upgrade fund to deal with the immediate needs for well upgrades. The funding ran dry weeks ago, and rural Ontarians are waiting for this government to wake up and act.

Will you act immediately and allow the transfer of funds, so that rural Ontarians can make the necessary upgrades? Will you also commit to inject the additional funds necessary, so that all of us in rural Ontario can ensure safe, clean drinking water for our families?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I'm happy to talk about healthy futures for Ontario agriculture. healthy futures was one of the programs designed by this government, under a previous minister. It's a $90-million program that was designed to enhance and promote responsible production, processing and distribution systems in the agri-food industry. It has been a great success. Over time, we have invested in a wide range of products to ensure that rural Ontario has the opportunities to ensure we have a healthy future for our young people and for our environment in those areas.

We've had over 300 applications. The system is now closed; the dollars have been spent. We had 119 projects that have been approved. The value of these projects is really insurmountable when you think about the benefits they have given rural Ontario.

We always have questions about reinvesting, and the government is looking at new programs all the time, which we might invest in.

1500

Mr Peters: Thank you, Minister, for the non-answer. I asked you something specific about one aspect of the healthy futures program.

Minister, it's been three years since Walkerton and your government continues to think it's acceptable to sit back and put the health of Ontarians at risk. Fifty-five per cent of the people who have had their wells tested have had results with some form of contamination, and estimates indicate as many as 100,000 wells will require decommissioning and upgrades in this province.

It's categorically unacceptable, three years after Walkerton, to have dirty drinking water in this province. I'm calling on you again, Minister, to not only act to allow the transfer of those funds to the upgrades, as you've been requested by individuals, but to inject a new round of funds with the dollars necessary to ensure that all rural Ontario has safe and clean drinking water for their families.

Minister, will you assure rural Ontario that you will act immediately, today, and continue to expand this vital program for water in rural Ontario?

Hon Mrs Johns: Let me say, we have a lot of programs we're working on to strengthen the environment and the water in rural Ontario. We have nutrient management. In this government's budget, in the throne speech and in the campaign documents, we're very clear that we're going to invest in the environment in rural Ontario. We're very, very clear about that.

We're also clear, through the Ministry of the Environment, that we're going to work on source protection and many of the other recommendations that have come from Justice O'Connor's report. Those too will benefit rural Ontario.

The commitment, when it comes to water, when it comes to the environment, when it comes to rural Ontario, is second to none by this side of the House. Healthy futures, this particular program, was designed because the OFA and other groups put together envelopes that they wanted to have the dollars put to. We would like each group to spend in all of the envelopes that they requested of us in the early stages. That's our goal: to have best management practices look at all the aspects of the proposal and make sure that each --

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

PHARMACISTS' DISPENSING FEES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): My question is for the Minister of Health. Ontario pharmacists dispense almost $2 billion worth of prescription drugs on the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary operated by the provincial government. For this professional service, pharmacists are paid $6.47 per scrip. The problem is that that's been the same rate for the last 13 years in this province, save and except for a small period of time during the NDP social contract where they clawed that back by 20%.

In all areas, the cost of operating a pharmacy has grown in this province, and pharmacists have much greater overhead costs. In a letter from the then Minister of Health back in 2001, we gave the pharmacists the assurance, and I quote from the letter, "Negotiations on a dispensing fee increase will begin in March at your convenience."

Minister, that was 28 months ago. Could you please tell the House when we're going to recognize the professional fees that pharmacists deserve and not the ones they're coping with in this province?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I thank the honourable member from Burlington for the question. Indeed, his recitation of the history of this is quite accurate, in particular that under the NDP government's social contract days they actually reduced the dispensing fee, a reduction that we reversed in 1999, and of course we're moving further to address this issue as well.

The honourable member might be interested to know that I formed a joint working group last year between my ministry and the Ontario Pharmacists' Association. I asked them to come back to me with an action plan to identify their priority issues and recommendations in a broader sense, not just the dispensing fee but a broader sense about the role of pharmacists in our health care system.

I can tell you we're now acting on that report. On May 2, just last month, I met with the OPA and I mentioned their issues. I indicated that we are addressing these as soon as we possibly can.

Mr Jackson: Minister, the Ontario drug benefit plan is the fastest-growing expense in the government of Ontario. It actually rose by over 11% last year. It's the most expensive program that we offer in health.

For the past several years, drug manufacturers have been raising their prices beyond what is legislatively permitted. In recent years, most drug manufacturers have been insisting that pharmacists buy their drugs from a wholesaler and that they pay an extra upcharge of between 3% and 10%. Today there are over 200 drugs on the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary that pharmacists dispense -- they do not cover their actual costs of stocking them and taking care of them and putting them in their inventory.

The question I have for you is this. We have a regulation that says that the manufacturer of the product must continue to be able to supply the products at the drug benefit price in a quantity that is sufficient to meet the demands for the product. Why are we not enforcing this regulation in Ontario to make sure that pharmacists can dispense drugs without losing money?

Hon Mr Clement: As the honourable member knows, there are a number of different aspects to this, including the costs to the operator, the costs associated with the pharmaceutical industry, the costs to the pharmacist, and of course I'm sure the honourable member would agree with me that the cost to the taxpayer has got to be foremost in our minds as well.

I want to assure the honourable member that various ministries in the government, including the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, are actively engaged in discussions with the pharmaceutical industry on their roles and responsibilities. I can tell you, and this is probably unprecedented, that we actually had a pharmacist sitting on our drug strategy review committee with the purpose of getting the pharmacists' perspective there, not just that of the pharmacy industry but the pharmacists' perspective, on reviewing exactly how our system works, how we can improve it for the future, and how we can protect not only Ontarians but the various stakeholders that have a legitimate interest at play.

HOME CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question to the Minister of Health. Yesterday, Gloria Rohrbacher of Capreol was told by the Manitoulin-Sudbury CCAC that her 85-year-old mother's homemaking services were being cut off. She's not the only one. The CCAC is eliminating homemaking services for the vast majority of clients in Sudbury and Manitoulin and is not accepting new requests for help except in very limited circumstances. To add insult to injury, Gloria was given a list of local homemaking service providers where she must now buy services for her mom. The CCAC has said that increasing demands for care and limited financial resources led to this decision.

Minister, what are you going to do to ensure that seniors in Sudbury and Manitoulin get the homemaking services they need from the CCAC?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): To the associate minister.

Hon Dan Newman (Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Mr Speaker, I understand that the VON's Sudbury branch will be providing homemaking services for the full term of their contract with the Manitoulin-Sudbury Community Care Access Centre. I also understand that there were some contractual discussions between the community care access centre and the VON, but this is something that the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care does not get involved in. I can tell you that our government appreciates the work that is carried on by the Manitoulin-Sudbury Community Care Access Centre, as well as the VON, Sudbury branch.

Ms Martel: When it comes to community care access centres, if you don't get involved to protect seniors and services, who does? For goodness' sake. What a silly answer.

Minister, this woman got a letter in the mail saying her mom's homemaking services were going to be cut off as of June 23, 2003. She was given a list of providers, VON included, and told she now must buy services from the VON and other local service providers. You know, Minister, that homemaking services allow seniors to stay in their homes as long as possible. It's much more cost-efficient for seniors to remain in their homes than it is for them to have to go into long-term-care facilities. Many seniors who need these services will not be able to afford to pay for them. So I ask you again, as the minister responsible for funding CCACs, what are you going to do to ensure that seniors in Sudbury and Manitoulin get the homemaking services they need without cost from the CCAC?

Hon Mr Newman: I say to you today, I'll put the record of our government with respect to home care up against the record of either the Liberals or the NDP any day. And I'll tell you this: our government has allocated almost $1.7 billion toward home care and community care services in the year 2002-03, and nearly $1.2 billion of that went to community care access centres for the very services the member talks about.

I can tell you that we have created a system in this province that does not have means testing for clients. There's no income testing. We also provide the broadest basket of services of all the provinces in Canada. I'm very proud of the home care record of this government.

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Labour): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Earlier, I raised a point of order in the House during question period with respect to the member for St Paul's. I raised the point that he had, in essence, linked all of the ministers of the crown into a grand conspiracy. I ask for some assistance. Here's what the member stated:

"So my question is to you as a minister is -- and it's not just with respect to OPG and Hydro One, but all government enterprise corporations not subject to freedom of information act requests -- will the government release all expenses submitted through those corporations that involve a minister of the crown? Will you release --

"Interjections.

"Mr Bryant: All the ministers doth protest too much. You know very well that there are monies and expenses being funnelled through government enterprise corporations to avoid public disclosure. You know it."

Very clearly, Mr Speaker, he has made an allegation not just against me as a minister of the crown, but every minister of the crown in this place. Our families, our credibility is on the line. You need now, sir, to step in and state this is inappropriate.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the member very much. I don't have copies. I also will say that Hansard will be available, and I'm sure the honourable member, if he has indeed said what is quoted, will, as always, rise in this House and withdraw it. Again, when we get into territories like this, I hope all members will be appropriate in what they say. I'm sure we'll get an opportunity to review Hansard. I thank the minister for bringing it to our attention.

1510

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Pursuant to standing order 37(a), the member for Timmins-James Bay has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Northern Development and Mines concerning the Ontario Northland Railway. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

VISITORS

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: On a happier note, I'm sure members would like to welcome to the members' gallery my constituency assistant from Whitby-Ajax, Kim Glover; our co-op student, Jamie Millage; and our summer students, Julia Silbak and Chris Mackay.

PETITIONS

HOME CARE

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas well-managed and adequately funded home health care is a growing need in our community; and

"Whereas the provincial government has frozen community care access centre budgets, which has meant dramatic cuts to service agency funding and services to vulnerable citizens, as well as shortened visits by front-line workers; and

"Whereas these dramatic cuts, combined with the increased complexity of care for those who do qualify for home care, has led to an impossible cost burden to home care agencies; and

"Whereas the wages and benefits received by home care workers employed by home care agencies are well below the wages and benefits of workers doing comparable jobs in institutional settings; and

"Whereas front-line staff are also required to subsidize the home care program in our community by being responsible for paying for their own gas and for vehicle maintenance; and

"Whereas other CCACs and CCAC-funded agencies across the province compensate their staff between 29 cents and 42.7 cents per kilometre; and

"Whereas CCAC-funded agency staff in our own community are paid 26 cents a kilometre, with driving time considered `hours worked';

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

"To act now to increase funding to the CCAC of Kingston, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington in order for it to adequately fund service agencies so they can fairly compensate front-line workers."

I will affix my signature to this petition because I am in full agreement.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The petition I have is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I received it some time ago. It's not quite as timely as it might be, but the general content is.

"Whereas the Eves government has increased the fees paid for by seniors and the most vulnerable living in long-term-care facilities by 15% or $7.02 per diem effective August 1, 2002; and

"Whereas this fee increase will cost seniors and our most vulnerable more than $200 a month; and

"Whereas this increase is 11.1% above the rent increase guidelines for tenants in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the increase in the government's own contribution to raise the level of long-term-care services this year is less than $2 per resident per day; and

"Whereas according to the government's own funded study, Ontario ranks last amongst comparable jurisdictions in the amount of time provided to a resident for nursing and personal care; and

"Whereas the long-term-care funding partnership has been based on government accepting the responsibility to fund the care and services that residents need; and

"Whereas government needs to increase long-term-care operating funding by $750 million over the next three years to raise the level of service for Ontario's long-term-care residents to at least those in Saskatchewan in 1999; and

"Whereas this province has been built by seniors who should be able to live out their lives with dignity, respect and in comfort in this province;

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

"Demand that Premier Eves reduce his 15% fee increase on seniors and the most vulnerable living in long-term-care facilities and increase provincial government support for nursing and personal care to adequate levels."

I affix my signature. I am in complete agreement.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): I've got a petition that reads like this:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario: