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

October 20, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Oct-20 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 20 October 2009 Mardi 20 octobre 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT

(VIOLENCE AND HARASSMENT

IN THE WORKPLACE), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ

AU TRAVAIL (VIOLENCE ET

HARCÈLEMENT AU TRAVAIL)

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

HEALTH CARE

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

SKILLS TRAINING

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

IMMIGRANTS

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

GO TRANSIT

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

BAMCO CUSTOM WOODWORKING

R. PETER HEFFERING

ORLEANS Y

GROVES MEMORIAL

COMMUNITY HOSPITAL

TORONTO ANTI-VIOLENCE INTERVENTION STRATEGY

AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS

CREDIT UNIONS AND CAISSES POPULAIRES

PETERBOROUGH MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

COMITÉ PERMANENT

DE LA POLITIQUE SOCIALE /

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

SOCIAL POLICY

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

CITIZENSHIP WEEK

PETITIONS

TAXATION

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

TOM LONGBOAT

HOSPITAL SERVICES

JUSTICE SYSTEM

TAXATION

TAXATION

CEMETERIES

TAXATION

FIREARMS CONTROL

TAXATION

CEMETERIES

PENSION PLANS

RAIL LINE CONSTRUCTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TECHNICAL STANDARDS AND SAFETY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX NORMES TECHNIQUES ET À LA SÉCURITÉ

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning. Please remain standing for the Lord's Prayer, followed by a moment of silence for inner thought and personal reflection.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT

(VIOLENCE AND HARASSMENT

IN THE WORKPLACE), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ

AU TRAVAIL (VIOLENCE ET

HARCÈLEMENT AU TRAVAIL)

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 5, 2009, on the motion for second reading of Bill 168,

An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act with respect to violence and harassment in the workplace and other matters / Projet de loi 168, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la santé et la sécurité au travail en ce qui concerne la violence et le harcèlement au travail et d'autres questions.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Further debate?

Ms. Helena Jaczek: It gives me great pleasure to enter into the debate on Bill 168,

an act that will introduce amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act to prevent workplace violence and to address workplace harassment. Certainly, I think everyone in this House must agree that everyone should be able to work without fear of violence in a safe and healthy workplace. I'd like to address this issue from the perspective of both the employer in the health care setting and also as a health care worker myself.

I think we need to acknowledge that there is, especially in the health care sector, the real possibility of physical violence occurring. As the commissioner of health services, I was ultimately responsible for both the safety of the residents and the workers in the region of York's long-term-care facilities. In that capacity, I remember very well looking through the incident reports of serious occurrences in the long-term-care facility and drilling down to see exactly what the situation had been.

In most cases, the situation was where an elderly Alzheimer's patient suffering from dementia had exhibited violent behaviour towards a health care worker and the health care worker had, in some fashion, retaliated. Of course, this was unacceptable from the point of view of hurting or physically damaging the patient in this case, but drilling down into those occurrences, it also became very clear that many actions could have been taken to prevent the incident from occurring in the first place.

We, as an example, instituted an educational program so that all workers in our long-term-care facilities would be extremely aware of the nature of the disease the patients they were caring for were suffering from so that they understood that in some cases, certainly not all, a small number of patients with Alzheimer's, out of frustration from their disease, may act out using behaviours that could be construed as violent and that the health care worker should take some actions instead of retaliating. But to understand the disease, we instituted anger management courses so that workers would also be able to analyze their own reactions to the perceived risk from these particular patients.

We also instituted the measure that immediately upon feeling that there was a potential for physical violence, the worker obtain the assistance of another worker so that two people would be able to deal with the situation. We were also very much into mitigation of the physical space within which our Alzheimer's patients were living, so that corridors did not end in blind dead ends, that there was always a circle that patients could walk in, thereby lessening their feelings of frustration.

What we noticed after we did institute these educational and mitigation preventive measures was we saw a rapid decline in the incidents, which obviously benefited both residents and the health care worker.

I remember many, many years ago, when I was a fourth-year medical student, looking at this particular issue of violence in the workplace from the perspective of a health care worker. I was a clinical clerk, a fourth-year medical student, doing my psychiatry rotation in a downtown teaching hospital, and I was asked to take a history from a patient with a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. I had, of course, learned from the textbooks exactly what the signs and symptoms of this disease were, and certainly, in some cases, there is the potential for physical violence.

It never occurred to me, as someone dedicated to helping people, that I might potentially be the subject of a physical attack, so I went into the interview room, closed the door, sat at the desk, and within about five minutes, realized that the patient was not seeing me as someone there to help him but probably, with the hallucinations he was experiencing, I looked exactly like the devil incarnate.

I rapidly left the room and I reported to my supervisor that I was fearful of physical violence. I was told, "Oh, didn't anyone actually mention to you that you should always interview someone with paranoid schizophrenia with the door open and sit close to the door?" When I managed to suggest that perhaps there should be two people in such a situation, I was looked upon with derision. In those days, medicine was an ordeal by fire and putting yourself at risk was considered part of the culture.

I'd certainly like to say that we've come a very long way from those days. We have taken steps in this particular legislation to address the issue, first, of harassment, with specific programs to be put in place to lessen the risk of harassment, and then, of course, the provision now that someone fearing physical violence in the workplace has the right to refuse that work. Again, we do address many other issues in the bill–domestic violence, as well.

I would simply like to conclude in saying that I'm so pleased to see that the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario, Doris Grinspun, and also Dr. Ken Arnold, the president of the Ontario Medical Association, have commended our government on the introduction of this bill.

Just to quote Dr. Arnold, "Ontario's doctors commend the provincial government for its introduction of Bill 168, which aims to better protect workers from violence in the workplace.

"We believe every health care provider has the right to a safe work environment and we hope these legislative amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act will help to ensure their safety."

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O'Toole: I look forward to commenting on this bill myself this morning. I'm sure the member who just spoke—from Oak Ridges—Markham, I guess it is—as a medical officer of health for York region, saw some of the unfortunate circumstances.

The domestic violence issue is the one that I'm most concerned about. In the workplace, this bill is purporting that a person would have to make a disclosure to their superior in the workplace. I find that quite uncomfortable; in fact, I am not supportive of the bill for that reason.

Harassment in the workplace is another thing. I think overt harassment should be completely forbidden. As well, punitive actions could be taken—dismissal etc. But when you start to get into the personal lives of individuals, men or women—or, for that matter, a person's lifestyle issues become something of a personal, confidential and private nature.

At the same time, I had a bill, the Lori Dupont Act, which I'll be speaking about more definitely, but I'd like the member who spoke on this bill to respond to my concern about bringing forward in the workplace—in the strictest of confidence, I guess—family relationship problems or emotional relationship problems that could be considered as interfering in the workplace and making a person vulnerable in the workplace—for sexual harassment, let's be straight about it and see if the member would respond to me in that case.

All of us here certainly want the workplace to be safe and to feel safe, but at the same time, do we want to expose our personal problems?

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate? The member from—

Mr. Paul Miller: Debate or questions and comments?

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Sorry. Questions and comments?

Mr. Paul Miller: I'd like to commend the member from Oak Ridges—Markham for her statement. There's nothing like a hands-on experience from being in the medical field like she was—and could be again. It was quite interesting to hear what she had to say about her personal experience in that situation.

Some of our health workers are constantly exposed to dangerous situations, as well as our teachers in the schools, where it can happen. My wife is a teacher, and she has had the odd incidents in schools over the years that require restraint and how to handle the kids—as well, in the medical area, adults.

I think that these types of protections in the workplace are necessary and should have been done a long time ago. We feel that anything that moves in the direction of protection of health workers as well as teachers or any other people that are in the—and you know, you have bullying in plants, too. You have people who use their physical presence to intimidate other workers and really terrorize people in the workplace. But this has got to end and we are in support of anything that would move in that direction to help people.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Mr. Jeff Leal: I came in at the tail end, and hearing the speech made by my colleague from Oak Ridges—Markham, I can assure the people in Oak Ridges—Markham that she will have a very long and very distinguished career in this House, because she is a remarkable member.

But, interestingly enough, to be a former chief medical officer of health, which she was, that position is a very unique position in that you are dealing with hospitals, with municipalities and with school boards, and it really gives you a unique insight into harassment that may be occurring. Something that we all want to do is to eradicate that.

Interjection.

Mr. Jeff Leal: The member from Durham is interjecting, and to be fair, he's been a leader. He's had a private member's bill, and he has seen first-hand, with a situation in his particular riding, why this legislation is needed and the need to rally all the forces we can to get rid of violence in the workplace.

I heard the member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. My wife is also a teacher, and you hear about those experiences that occur in the classroom and within the teaching profession. Again, we need to do everything we can to eradicate the violence and the potential of harassment and really glean some insight into individuals who potentially could have these problems, to be in a proactive position to get to that individual before something very tragic happens.

We're all very aware of high-profile cases that have been reported upon in the media, and the kind of devastation that can happen when we don't have legislation in place to be proactive and get to the root of the problem as quickly as we can.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Questions and comments?

Mr. Peter Shurman: I listened with interest to my colleague from Oak Ridges—Markham, and it's hard to disagree with any of the sentiments that she expresses, because if you ask me or anybody else, "Do you agree that we should control violence, or sexual or any other kind of harassment, in the workplace?" the answer would be an obvious yes. But I find myself constantly at a loss for an ability to wrap my head around and agree with a bill like this, because I don't know where the dots are connected in terms of creating a law and having that law attached to the workplace in a meaningful way, where we actually can exercise the control that we're discussing.

The bill says that in the workplace, once this becomes law, you have to prepare a policy regarding workplace violence. So what's that policy going to be? The policy is going to be, in two short words, "No violence." But it's not a predictable thing. Just because you enact a law or because you say there won't be violence in a workplace doesn't guarantee anything, certainly not violence in the workplace, which is very typically spontaneous. That's what violence in a workplace is. It isn't, "I'm going to go to work this morning and be violent." It is, to use the vernacular of the day, somebody going postal.

As far as sexual harassment is concerned, that is more easily controlled, but again, this bill says, "You will prepare a policy on workplace harassment." It seems to me that in legislation at the federal and provincial levels there's much reference to harassment in the workplace and what you may and may not do and what may and may not be interpreted as harassment. So that begs the question, why do you need this law? Again, I am concerned, and I say this to the member from Oak Ridges, with being put in a position where if I don't vote for this, I'm obviously for violence and harassment in the workplace, when such is obviously not the case.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member from Oak Ridges—Markham has two minutes to respond.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I'd very much like to thank my colleagues from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, Peterborough and Thornhill for their mostly very gracious remarks. I'm glad to hear that there is a consensus developing that Bill 168 is putting us very clearly in the right direction to ensure that our workplaces are safer.

I certainly, perhaps in contrast to the member from Thornhill, believe that employers will be fully capable of putting together policies to prevent harassment and violence in the workplace. It simply requires, obviously, the understanding of the goal.

I don't think there is an employer out there who wouldn't want to avoid a situation in their workplace, whether it simply be in terms of protecting their workers, which is what we would expect, but also from the business perspective that no one would want a situation developing in their own organization that could lead to that particular institution or business being looked upon in a negative light. So I have every faith that where there is goodwill and knowledge of best practices, these will in fact be disseminated.

We certainly put some teeth into the bill so that inspectors will be able to come in and examine such policies and ensure that they meet the goals that clearly we share with all Ontarians.

Just in closing, I would like to remind everyone that we do have endorsements from many other individuals, including the teachers' associations, the medical profession and also unions. Thank you so much.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Mr. John O'Toole: It's a pleasure to participate in second reading of Bill 168 this morning. I think my colleague from Thornhill summed it up quite succinctly when he said that the goals and objectives of Bill 168, to stop—create a non-violent, harassment-free workplace, are goals we all support. Let's be very clear on behalf of the opposition party and our leader, Tim Hudak: We espouse that virtue completely. In fact, if you look at the labour legislation that exists today, the right to refuse unsafe work exists today in the statutes.

There are committees established in—I think all workplaces have a safety committee that reviews everything from hazardous materials to dangerous working conditions. All accidents in the workplace are reported. Repeated accidents in the workplace would certainly provoke labour ministry inspectors to come to the workplace. Whether it's a WSIB—that's the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board—claim or claim history, there's a lot of existing structure around the workplace.

I think what I have the biggest problem with is, when I think back to a couple of bills—and in Bill 168 there's a

section that should trigger a bit of concern. This bill actually rescinds and repeals an existing act. It rescinds and repeals the Domestic Violence Protection Act, which is a bill that passed in 2000. The Domestic Violence Protection Act of 2000 was repealed in this bill. In that case here, I don't know why they didn't proclaim that bill.

When I looked at that myself—and I'm talking about a specific case; it was called the Lori Dupont Act. After three or four events that I was aware of which were domestic violence that showed up in the workplace—and this was the case of Lori Dupont, who was a surgical nurse, I gather, in Hamilton, and her estranged husband. There was an attempt by Ms. Dupont to get a restraining order, and she was not able to require that restraining order. Anyway, this estranged husband, who was a doctor, came in and killed Ms. Dupont; then he killed himself, actually. The workplace, of course, happened to be in a hospital, which was even more tragic—a place where people are trying to be cured.

I started with the Lori Dupont Act, and that bill was in memory of Lori Dupont to better protect victims of domestic violence. It, on its own, had a specific relationship to this bill, and it was Bill 10, my bill—but it actually reflected things that happened in my riding. This could be considered domestic violence as well: It was Jennifer Copithorn, who was a bank clerk. She was on her way to work—in fact, she was on the steps to the workplace, and the workplace happened to be across the road from my constituency office in Durham, specifically in Bowmanville—and her estranged boyfriend murdered her.

That really drove it home. Let's put it that way: It put it home to me. So I'm still not happy that this bill deals with it in a significant way.

But what my bill did is empower the victims to be able to get a restraining order seven days a week, 24 hours a day—to be able to go to a JP and get a restraining order. Now, that's the same thing that Bill 133, the Domestic Violence Protection Act, 2000, that I referred to—that bill itself was not proclaimed for the same reason. It was to get a restraining order seven days a week, 24 hours a day, so that you could get the protection when and where you needed it at any time—not just in the workplace, but any place.

And you could get a court to review the restraining order and other guidance around that particular bill. So I'm quite concerned that the bill doesn't quite do what many that I've talked to think it should.

I want to go to some of the details here, as my friend from Thornhill—or my colleague, certainly. I consider him a friend as well, but he is certainly is a colleague. He's sitting beside me.

Anyway, this is the part of the bill that gets into the way this current government tends to go about everything. They circumvent the obvious solutions. I'll just read some of the sections. Madam Speaker, I know you have done a lot of work in various areas in this Legislature and you'll probably nod your head, I'm sure, at some of these comments and observations. It could be up and down or sideways; I just said you could move.

But in the first

part it says, "Section 32.0.1 of the act requires an employer to prepare policies with respect to workplace violence and workplace harassment, and to review the policies at least annually." It's easy for Minister Fonseca. Sometimes when he speaks, I think he is the fellow from Entertainment Tonight . But anyway, it's fine for them to say that. Are they giving them any resources to do it? How about the small employer? How big? How small?

It goes on: "Section 32.0.2 of the act requires an employer to develop a program"—not just a plan but a program—"to implement the workplace violence policy. The program must include measures to control risks of workplace violence identified in the risk assessment that is required under

section 32.0.3, to summon immediate assistance when workplace violence occurs, and for workers to report incidents or threats of workplace violence. The program must also set out how the employer will deal with incidents, complaints and threats of workplace violence."

You can't argue, as my colleague from Thornhill said, with the intent here. It's the process. These poor employers today are worried about laying people off because of the economy. I don't blame all this economy turmoil on Premier McGuinty. This Thursday, we'll hear the Minister of Finance saying that—we could actually have a lottery on this. The Minister of Finance is going to do an economic update, and I put on the table today that my forecast is over $20 billion.

Mr. Peter Shurman: Easily.

Mr. John O'Toole: Easily over $20 billion. You could move your head sideways or up and down, Madam Speaker. It's going to be humongous. We are spending $2 million an hour more than we're taking in as revenue.

We're putting more red tape on the workplace in Bill 168. I think there are other ways to achieve this. If the Minister of Labour wants to cut a cheque to have this person—because I'm going to go on: "Section 32.0.3. of the act requires an employer to assess the risk of workplace violence and to report the results of the assessment to the joint health and safety committee or to a health and safety representative." Is that a full-time job or a part-time job? Are they going to be on the tools, on the factory floor, or do they have an office?

"If there is no committee or representative, the results must be reported to the workers"—everyone called together at the lunch hour in the cafeteria, I guess. "The risk must be reassessed as often as is necessary to protect workers from workplace violence." There's a lot of red tape in that.

My friend from Thornhill said it briefly: The workplace policy on this should be that violence will not be tolerated—immediate dismissal. That's fairly simple. When you hire, you assess people, and if they've had—let's carry this forward. If due diligence and risk assessment—I think I should have a profile on every employee. If they've ever been involved as a perpetrator in violence, domestic or otherwise, they shouldn't be hired.

What are we doing about workplace violence in hockey? It's full of it. What is it saying to our children? Where does government stop and where does it start? The fundamental question and the broader philosophy of this discussion are, where is the place of government in our lives? Have clear, specific rules: "Thou shalt not do the following things, and here are the consequences if you do."

Bullying in the schoolyards: I look at the new pages here. They are a lovely group of young, intelligent people who are here to witness the participation in the debate. There are not a lot of people here this morning, but nonetheless—I would say that there's not good evidence of people interested in this topic. But I'm just going on here:

"Under

section 32.0.4 of the act, if an employer is aware, or"—this is a key word too; you've got to be careful with some of these legal words—"ought to be aware"—what is that, "ought to be aware"? Were they closing their eyes?

Mr. Peter Shurman: Shoulda, woulda, coulda.

Mr. John O'Toole: Shoulda, woulda, coulda—"aware that domestic violence that is likely to expose a worker to physical injury may occur in the workplace, the employer must take every reasonable precaution to protect the worker." I agree with that.

Okay, let's review that. Let's say you're in a factory with 500 employees and you're the immediate supervisor. There's probably one supervisor for every 30 people or so. With 500 employees—let's keep it simple—you probably have 25 employees per group, per supervisor, so there are roughly 25 supervisors. You've got to train them, then you have another person and then you have to have a designated person who's going to be the workplace representative. And you have to be aware of all of their backgrounds. In fact, you should pretty well do a little profile on them, really.

The medical officer of health, the member that spoke earlier from Oak Ridges—Markham, would know there's probably evidence of a person's character when you are interviewing them. Did they tell you the truth that they've never been involved in violence, that they've never been involved in domestic disputes or other things that wouldn't be helpful to the workplace? So all those 500 employees would be interviewed. You would have to have a profile case on them all. I don't think that's appropriate.

Now, does this mean that anyone who has ever been involved in violence, like an ex-convict, male or female, shouldn't be hired? This gets pretty serious, because if I'm hiring someone who's got a history of violence and they perpetrate violence in the workplace and they didn't tell me, I ought to have known that they would possibly act out in the workplace, so I'm culpable. I'm now in court. I'm being sued, when that person who felt threatened has the responsibility on their part to advise the supervisor, and the supervisor to the president of the company, I guess, because ultimately they're going to be guilty of something.

So if I know that I have a domestic problem and I tell my supervisor, what is going to be in the plan? It says in here that they should be able to have someone show up if something happens. It says, "to summon immediate assistance." Now, who would that be? It says in here, under

section 32, that the person should be able to summon immediate assistance. I'm feeling threatened, and I'm going to call who? I guess we're going to have to call the police. Now, we have police in our schools today. Okay. How's that working out? I'm telling you, they aren't handling the bullying in our schools properly, let alone this bill.

Let's review where we are at this point in the discussion. First of all, we agree that workplace violence and harassment in the workplace, sexual or otherwise, should not be tolerated. How they're going about it is, they've got this can of red ink and they're drawing up all these rules for some board to be put on, "Thou shalt doing the following things," and there's not one cent in here for the employers to transition into this. Yet we have proven here that there's a requirement.

The person who feels threatened or victimized in a domestic situation, let's say that alone, under the Lori Dupont Act or Bill 133, the provincial domestic violence act, can get a restraining order seven days a week, 24 hours a day. In that order it should say, "In the workplace, the person should not allow Mr. or Mrs. X to come into the place," if they work there—it's possible they could be working in the place—and that could be the action taken: a reasonable, practical way of implementing from the victim's perspective.

But if I came to the workplace, I've been there three months, new job, and I'm saying that I feel threatened by that big bully over there or whatever it is—some of this just doesn't make any sense from the point of implementation. In the emotional level of reasoning, it makes sense, but on the practical level this piece of work here is a work of fiction. If I go on to look at 32(5) of the act, it clarifies that the employer's duties in

section 25, the supervisor's duties in

section 27 and the worker's duties in

section 28 apply as appropriate with respect to workplace violence. Subsection 32(5) also requires—here's another rule for the employer; get out the red tape to make the sign—to provide a worker with information and instruction on the contents of workplace violence policy and programs.

All of this is very nice. I've worked for 30 years, mostly in an industrial kind of environment. Probably about 10 of it was in a computer kind of environment. It's kind of industrial; it's quite noisy with all the computers humming and buzzing and whirring. But there were probably tensions in those workplaces, whichever, whether it was the computer room or the personnel department or in the workplace on the plant floor itself. People have good days and bad days, and the odd time in my 30-plus years I saw a couple of fights. I saw different things that weren't appropriate.

I'm not sure this bill is going to fix it either, actually. What it does is shift any responsibility from the Ministry of Labour onto the employer. That's what this does. And he doesn't give them five cents to fix this problem; it gives them a bunch of red tape—they probably have to hire a lawyer to draft up this risk assessment. They'll have to hire a statistician to do the statistical risk assessment and they'll have to hire a consultant, hopefully one of the Liberal consultants because they're all discharged from eHealth now, so a lot of them would be available. They are very expensive, though.

Some of them are $2,800 a day. They may be out of work for a while because of the auditor's report.

Bringing this back, there's a lot of red tape in here that doesn't achieve the goal that we want to achieve, which is to ensure the protection, especially from domestic violence in the workplace. We had a bill, Bill 10; this bill could have passed and could have solved this problem. What have they done? They've flung it out. In fact, the parent bill, Bill 133, it's rescinded. That bill was passed by all the parties in this Legislature in 2000 but it was never proclaimed. Why wasn't it proclaimed?

If you probe into why it wasn't proclaimed and why they're getting rid of the Lori Dupont Act, which would have allowed the justice of the peace to issue a restraining order, seven days a week, 24 hours a day—I'm wondering if the judicial council has meddled with this. Maybe they don't want to give up certain powers and authorities. I don't know. I'm putting this on the table. Perhaps the minister—I won't comment whether or not he or she is here, but perhaps we'll follow up on this. The parliamentary assistant, I think, is—who is the parliamentary assistant on this, anyway? Well, pardon me.

We can't say whether they're here or not because attendance is down a bit. We could probably call if there is a quorum. But I wouldn't want to do that with me speaking. There would be no one here then.

Anyway, I'm going to wrap it up in a very brief time. I should be given an hour on this because this bill—

Interjections.

Mr. John O'Toole: Here's the real deal. The bill amends

section 43 of the act—but this is important—which deals with the worker's right to refuse work in various circumstances. This exists already. We have the member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. He's an expert in labour rights and does an excellent job in this Legislature. He, in his two-minute response—I'm encouraging someone to participate in this debate—could address it, because there is a right to refuse work today that is considered unsafe. There is a right to refuse based on this as well.

If I felt unsafe because of some big bully or some big machine that was hanging over my head, I have a duty—not just a right; a duty—to report it. The employer has duties and responsibilities in this relationship as well. In the case of a worker with limited rights of refusal to work under situations—it is incumbent on the employer to make the place, if there isn't a union. So I think we have difficulty with this bill, as I've expressed this morning.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate? The member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

Mr. Paul Miller: Questions and comments.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Oh, sorry. Questions and comments?

Mr. Paul Miller: I was going to question some of the logic Mr. O'Toole was using, but because of the compliment, it's difficult to.

Basically, we feel that this bill is a start, but it falls far short of what we'd like to see. It seems to be a pattern that it doesn't come up to snuff, so to speak. We don't feel that it cuts what we require.

The only thing I would argue with the member from Durham is that safety and health is different than workplace violence. Safety and health applies to unsafe job practices. It also gives the worker the right to refusal, as he mentioned, and the worker can have the ministry come in to determine whether it's safe or not to proceed with the job. But when you're talking about workplace violence, you're talking about a different ball game.

Over the years, working in the environment that I worked in, I saw a lot of harassment and a lot of violence from people and individuals. It ended up being that both people would be sent home—the victim and the bully would be sent home until they straightened it out, and they'd both lose wages—because they did not have legislation in place to cover this type of situation and the employer really didn't have a

section of the bill or anything to enforce their position. It can be a very difficult thing unless you spell it out. If the rules are spelled out directly and appropriately, then you will know what route to take as an employer.

As far as the expense to an employer goes, they spend millions of dollars a year in Ontario on safety and health. I think that could be included in there and I don't think it would be any additional cost. If it required any litigation, they could go outside and hire a lawyer if the victim wants to charge.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments and questions?

Mr. Mike Colle: Just a bit of a rebuttal to my colleague from Durham: If he looks closely at the bill, he'll see that there is a provision in Bill 168 that addresses domestic violence when it occurs in connection with the workplace. Also, the proposed bill would require an employer to act as if they are told about a domestic violence situation or they see physical evidence of such. So there is that kind of alert process in the bill that would require an employer to be cognizant of any domestic violence situation.

The bill would not require an employer to question each individual employee about their personal relationship on a regular basis and intrude on them. There is no intrusion allowed into a person's personal life.

I know some employer groups are concerned about employer obligations, and that's acknowledged. But there is a provision in the bill, which the Ministry of Labour and the health and safety associations are working on, that would deal with this concern. In conjunction with the Ontario Women's Directorate, the Ministry of Labour has been working on resources to help employers understand this issue.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Mr. Peter Shurman: I listened with interest to my colleague and my friend from Durham, who I've gotten to know fairly well over the past couple of years. If anybody stands with a degree of legitimacy in this Legislature to talk to a bill like this, it would be somebody like my friend from Durham, because before coming to the Legislature, it's worth noting, he spent a considerable amount of time in worthy endeavours around human resources and does understand the scope of what is and isn't feasible within a workplace.

I think every member from every party who stood up to either speak or comment on this bill has talked about the fact that it's a worthy goal. But bills should not be simply a good start or a worthy goal or something designed to raise awareness. They constitute, ultimately, law that involves the necessity to implement at some cost, both financial and moral and on every other level in the workplace, things that are not necessarily doable.

My friend from Durham, as he pointed out, has been involved on an earnest basis in bills that were worthy of passage—bills that were either passed and not proclaimed or weren't passed at all. The Lori Dupont bill, his own bill, comes to mind. It would have enforced 24/7 bans on any kind of—restraining orders, basically, that would be enforced 24/7 against people who would necessarily perpetrate violence against someone.

That's a worthy kind of bill to prevent violence, not create a position within a workplace that seeks to look into 10 or 20 or 100 or 200 people's lives when we all know that you can't see into someone else's house, their kitchen, their bedroom. You don't know what's going on and you never will, and a bill will not regulate that.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member has two minutes to respond.

Mr. John O'Toole: I'd like to thank the members from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, Eglinton—Lawrence, as well as Thornhill. In all cases they made compliments as well as observations that could be correct. The member from Hamilton was correct. Again, I say that he has a lot of experience in what he speaks about because of his time in the real world of work. He did, at the end, suggest that they could hire a lawyer when all else fails, and there is the right to refuse. This could be easily handled by simplifying the bill and saying, "There's a duty on the employee to disclose," but words like "ought to have known" become a vague kind of suggestion, and the employer is liable.

The member from Eglinton—Lawrence referred roughly to the same section. I'm going to read that. It says in

section 32.0.4 that if an employer becomes aware or ought to be reasonably "aware that domestic violence that is likely to expose a worker to physical injury may occur in the workplace," the employer shall take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances. This whole "ought to have known" shifts the liability. How can the employer know all of the things without having an extensive amount of unnecessary information about males or females or members of whatever orientation in their workplace? It's completely inappropriate. People aren't likely going to be telling these personal things or personal stories.

However, the employee who feels they could be threatened has a duty to report to the employer the circumstances and the individual that they suspect could perpetrate violence in the workplace. That's a reasonable solution. We're going to propose those kinds of amendments this morning. But the reality is, this is more red tape on the employers, and ultimately, the victims have no better protection than they have today. They could get on with this and pass the Lori Dupont Act and/or fix this bill before we go forward.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Mr. Paul Miller: I'd like to start off by saying that this bill is a start, but it falls short of a lot of things that we would like to see in it. I'm hoping that at the committee level, the government will have an open mind to listen to the people who deal with this. I hope some of the presentations are from people who deal with this every day of their lives and are in this environment, and that they'll take note of the good advice they get from the labour movement.

Labour has a violence-in-the-workplace campaign which sets out general principles for this legislation and regulation. Workplace violence coverage should cover workplace violence from all sources: third party, someone who works at the workplace, a client or person who receives service from the organization, and include impacts of domestic violence. It should also cover all forms of violence in a comprehensive definition, including verbal, harassment and bullying, all the way to physical incidents of violence; define "harassment" to include a single event; and cover all workplaces in all provincial sectors.

Changes are needed to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which must include violence regulation. The proposed definition for "workplace violence" in Bill 168 limits violence to situations where the physical violence is being committed or attempted against a worker. This excludes situations where a person may be violent with another person in the workplace who is not a worker, but where the workers are expected to intervene to stop the violence—i.e., student-to-student, patient-on-patient, and client-on-client.

There are a couple of options acceptable to labour to address this. In paragraphs (

a) and (

b) of the definition, where they use the phrase "against a worker," change the word "worker" to "person" or—

Interjections.

Mr. Paul Miller: Madam Speaker, it's getting tough to speak here. There's too much distraction here, sidebars going on.

Delete the phrase "against a worker" altogether.

The current definition also does not cover threats or conduct that would lead to physical injury.

There are two possible ways to address this concern. Option one: Add a new provision, "(

c) engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace that provides reasonable grounds to believe it causes or could cause physical injury to the worker." Option two: Combine paragraphs (

a) and (b), then add a reference to threats which give workers reasonable cause to believe that they are at risk of injury.

One

section of Bill 168 will limit domestic violence to physical force or attempted physical force. It does not include stalking or harassment that gives a worker reason to believe their health or safety is at risk. Revising the definition will resolve the concern. Use of the word "likely" in this

section sets too high a standard. Labour proposes changing it to "reason to believe," as found in the current

section of the act dealing with the right to refuse.

Some of the amendments needed to the act: They should have specific recognition in the Occupational Health and Safety Act that violence is an occupational hazard, and amendments to clarify the right-to-refuse

section of the act to allow refusals for violence, i.e., because of a person, and by referencing the working environment. Third, reprisal protection should be strengthened. We can have the best regulations in the world, but unless it stops employers from intimidating workers to not report violent incidents, we will not have protected Ontario workers.

So what they're saying is that you have to have the support of all the parties, not only the legal system. You have to have support from the employer and the employees to work to rectify a situation. If one of them doesn't feel like taking

part in it or is reluctant, that surely weakens the system.

Joint health and safety committees: Revise

section 52(2) of the current act dealing with notifying the union and/or representative if an occupational disease claim has been filed as a result of a workplace harassment. Spell out reporting requirements. If someone is injured because the person who injured them or threatened them was not doing something safe, then there should be an additional penalty on the individual who caused the accident by not following the proper procedures or even by sabotaging the procedures of safe work to possibly injure another employee.

It should include a mention of meaningful consultation and participation with the joint health and safety committees and safety representatives of that organization. Now, this government is constantly bragging about WSIB and how they want to improve work and safety, but I'll tell you that about a third of the businesses in this province don't have health and safety committees. I guess what I'm saying is, practise what you preach. This could also fall under those committees to look at.

Health and safety: Employers must conduct hazard assessments in consultation with health and safety committees to identify whether workplace violence is a potential hazard. Could two workers who don't get along, it's known by other employees, and who are working in a situation by themselves in a dark corner of the plant or wherever they're working—could that one person have the ability to cause a person's injury and say, "Oh, it was just an accident," because there were only two of them working in that situation?

The employer has to take responsibility when he knows there is a morale problem or there's a problem between two workers. To put them in a situation where they are by themselves and they have a beef with each other I don't think is a wise move. That's another thing that's overlooked in the bill.

The bill requires employers to conduct a risk assessment but only requires that the joint health and safety committee representative be advised of the results and be given a copy. This falls far short of what we'd like to see. That representative should take

part in any discussions between the company, the employee and the other employee if there are harassment problems, not just given a copy of the results of the discussions. There could be something that those employees don't realize they are entitled to or they are misrepresented in those meetings, and this person who is trained would be able to help them in a situation which could have negative results for them.

The designated substance regulation, DSR, requires employers to carry out assessments in consultation with the joint health and safety committees and empower the joint health and safety committees to make recommendations with respect to the assessment. The bill provides very little detail on what employers should be looking at in this assessment. A definition of risk assessment is needed and should be specified. It isn't in this bill.

Labour has a long-time standing opposition against any assessment that emphasizes a management of risk over controlling hazards to protect workers. Labour is prepared to accept the phrase "risk assessment" only if it's defined as a hazard assessment and the reference to risk 32.0.3 made plural.

Information must be provided to workers about the potential for violence and incidents of violence and maintaining respect for the privacy of individuals. Information and reporting to joint health and safety committees and health and safety reps: Plans need to be specific to the workplace, not just general; strong language for worker training, PowerPoint presentations and regular monthly safety meetings.

When I worked in the large plant where I worked, there'd be a big push for safety and health for a few months and then it would die off for whatever reason—they wanted more production or didn't have enough salaried personnel to conduct the meetings. We might go three or four months without a safety meeting at times. And that's a lot of time for things to fall off the railway and a lot of time for things to go back to bad practices which cause accidents. Regular monthly meetings are a must.

The bill requires employers to provide workers with information and instruction, but training is not mentioned. No training. I mean, how does a person deal with risk assessment, a hazard or workplace violence if that person isn't trained? So these joint health and safety committees should have a person—at least one person—on the committee who has some kind of courses to deal with workplace violence, and safety and health situations caused by workplace violence. I don't see that here.

Training is specifically mentioned under the act as a requirement for workers exposed to hazardous substances and physical agents. Well, that's already there. We have our WHMIS, we have those programs in the plants, but we have no one on a committee to deal with these harassment situations. We need that.

Training must be developed, delivered and reviewed regularly in consultation with the joint health and safety committees. And here we are, we're back to those monthly meetings which are critical to all employees to refresh their memories on the policies of the company.

No consultation around information and instruction required in the bill: This requirement currently exists under the act for hazardous substances and physical agents—and there we go again, the same thing again.

Recognition that violence prevention includes measures and procedures, not just a policy, such as work practices, design and organization of work, procedure for chain of command reporting, and investigation and response—language from sections 8 and 9 of the regulation for health care and residential facilities would be a useful amendment.

The bill will require employers to develop a program to deal with workplace violence. This includes preparing measures and procedures to control the risks identified in the assessment, summoning assistance, reporting incidents or threats and investigations of incidents and complaints of threats. There is no consultation requirement nor is the employer required to provide a copy to the joint health and safety committee.

If you are going to have legislation in place, you also have to make the joint health and safety committee a big part of that because they are not only going to rectify the situation, they're going to help in the decision-making, and they should be involved. I don't see a lot of that in here. If you haven't got the people on the floor, the safety and health reps, who are in there day in and day out, where the management might not be, or it may be a hands-on or hands-off situation—they have to be aware of what is going on in their plant.

Therefore employers must develop and annually review a comprehensive violence policy and program that should include:

—a commitment statement;

—a definition of workplace violence;

—sources of violence;

—recognition of workplace violence as an occupational hazard;

—hazard assessment as a mandatory step;

—how and what information is reported to workers and to the joint health and safety committees and health and safety reps;

—responsibilities and roles of employers, supervisors, joint health and safety committees, health and safety reps, and workers;

—mechanisms and processes to report, respond to and investigate violence incidents and hazards, and—a critical component—to provide follow-up to workers, and consultation and follow-up to joint health and safety committees, and meetings;

—provisions for how information and reporting goes up the chain of command, so that everyone is aware of the situation. Some of these plants employ thousands of employees. The guy at the top sometimes doesn't hear about it till months later. It should be immediate so he has a handle on what's going on in his company;

—recognition that violence prevention includes measures and procedures as well as policies, such as design and organization of the work;

—that joint health and safety committees and health and safety reps and workers be consulted in the development and review, and that the joint health and safety committee representatives' recommendations be given meaningful consideration;

—support mechanisms for workers;

—a process for follow-up that includes recommendations from the joint health and safety committee representatives, and reporting to all parties;

—reporting to the WSIB;

—sections 51 and 52 reporting obligations;

—section 9(31) entitlements to investigate critical injuries and fatalities;

—record-keeping and tracking and analysis of incidents, accidents, injuries and illnesses.

This bill does not even approach this level of detail of what the policy and program must include. Many provisions in this bill have a paragraph which allows for more detail in regulation, but the government has no plans to prepare violence-in-the-workplace regulation.

There is no provision for notifying the joint health and safety committees of the plants and the union of harassment incidents which result in WSIB claims. Labour wants to see either a revision to 52(2) or a new 52(4) added to address this. This will be brought out in committee, and I hope the government is listening.

There is a provision in the bill which enables the government to pass regulations to make specific requirements for any policy required under the act. This goes beyond the violence issue.

With some revisions, the new federal regulation could be used as a basis for new regulations. For instance, the definition would need rewriting. Sections 20.4 and 20.5 would be acceptable if they included a provision requiring the consideration of the isolation of the place of employment and the need to work alone.

Section 20.6, dealing with controls, needs work and will need to include provisions addressing working alone or in isolation. All of paragraph 6 of

section 20.9 would need to be deleted.

Labour likes the points covered in sections 20.7, 20.8 and 20.10 dealing with the measures review, procedures and training.

Labour does not want best practices in lieu of legislation, i.e., amendments to the act and a new regulation. Labour does not want participation in a tripartite agreement or process.

This bill really falls short of what the workplace needs. The members of the official opposition are correct: They don't feel that it covers certain areas. I don't know if they are willing to go as far as we would like to see it go, but it definitely should.

I don't think that this type of legislation—it can be governed and overseen by the WSIB. They don't have to pass it on to the employer. The employer should not be saddled with any additional costs, but the employer should also have the ability to strengthen his health and safety committees and his union stewards and his front-line foremen so they can deal with this so that it doesn't become a cumbersome and ongoing problem for the employer.

It should be rectified and done at the time of the incident or within a couple of days, straightened out and made quite clear to any employees that if they continue in this manner, it will mean that they will be fired. I think that that spells it out quite clearly. If people realize that it's going to cost them their income and their life's work, then I think they're going to think twice about some of the things they've been doing in the past.

In closing, the bill is a small start. We want to see a lot of changes to it before it goes to third reading. I hope, once again, that the government doesn't ignore the third party or the official opposition's amendments to bills, because some of them are excellent, and they should definitely take them into consideration.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Comments and questions?

Mr. Mike Colle: As you know, we are now in second reading debate. Hopefully, many of the good points that the member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek mentioned will be discussed in detail in committee, because this bill will go to committee, where there will be presentations made by a lot of the interested parties. These committees will be, I'm sure, quite helpful in getting the final draft of this bill. That's the critical stage. I think he has some very good recommendations that I hope they'll consider seriously.

I know the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, the member from Brampton West, is here today and listening very attentively—

Interjection.

Mr. Mike Colle: —not like the member from Durham, who's always talking and never listening. The member from Brampton West is listening. He's the parliamentary assistant and he is going to take a lot of this into consideration, bring it forward to the minister and also participate in the committee hearings because the committee hearings will hopefully make this a strong bill.

The bill doesn't pretend to answer all the critical issues that are sometimes found in workplaces, but it tries to put some pretty tough standards in place to prevent this type of systemic violence and harassment that takes place.

In fact, Ken Coran, the president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, says it best. He says, "The amendments introduced to the act clearly demonstrate that workplace violence and harassment will not be tolerated. Employers will now have to identify harassment and violence as hazards and implement policies and programs that are both preventative and responsive." That is, I think, wrapping up the bill in a nutshell: preventive, making sure things don't happen, hopefully; and then responding if things do happen.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments and questions?

Mr. Toby Barrett: In this debate this morning, I found the remarks not only by the member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek but also remarks by the member from Durham to be—I guess I would use the word "enlightening." They know of what they speak. The member from Durham has spent a number of years in personnel, human resources, with a very large organization in the auto sector.

Interjection.

Mr. Toby Barrett: What's wrong with General Motors? I drive a GMC Sierra that was built in Oshawa. Regrettably, they're now being built in Indiana. That's a problem for the steel industry, where the member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek has spent a number of years. He knows labour issues very well. I've been at a number of meetings with the member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

The point I want to make: Having two people like this involved in this legislation is doing the government a favour, in a sense, because these guys have a wealth of experience. The member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek made a number of references to joint health and safety committees; that would be a joint union-management committee, in my understanding of the term.

I wish to make reference to work that I did for a number of years with both the auto industry and with the steel industry in setting up joint union-management committees with respect to employee assistance programming. Many of these committees remain in place. I feel that, rather than a sole focus in this legislation of having the employer required to prepare policy and implement the policy, let's draw in everybody; let's draw in the union and unionized shops and let's put emphasis on joint committees.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments and questions?

Mr. John O'Toole: The member from Hamilton East, I appreciate his taking the time to try to comment and to make the bill better, and I think everyone here is really of the same view that that is the goal. I know the parliamentary assistant is here, and I would hope that he would take a couple of minutes and maybe respond to the remarks being made today.

I do see a fair amount of red tape in this bill. I would like assurances, and hopefully there would be hearings on the bill. As the member from Haldimand—Norfolk has suggested, a tri-party solution would not be a bad thing, where you'd have the union and the employers and the employees involved directly. I think it would build a better solution.

But what is the problem here in, specifically, the domestic violence portion? The problem is this: First of all, when you say someone ought to know that there's a threat of danger of domestic violence in the workplace, it implies that the employee was to tell the employer that there have been domestic problems. Being a married person myself, an MPP and in the public service for 27 years roughly, it's not uncommon. I don't think that all violence is physical; I think some of it is other types of intimidation. My point is this: Some people are uncomfortable telling the employer about these personal problems.

Now, what if they don't tell the employer and there was evidence, police calls or whatever. Who is responsible? What they're doing here is shifting this responsibility of domestic violence to the employer. My bill, the Lori Dupont Act, proposed that victims could get a restraining order seven days a week, 24 hours a day. That order could address the workplace or it could address other places where the perpetrator could be, but that's what's missing from this bill—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. Further comments or questions?

The member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Paul Miller: I'd just like to acknowledge the member from Eglinton—Lawrence. I appreciate the fact that he has been listening intently and that he was, I hope, sincere about listening to some of our suggestions in committee; that maybe the majority of members on the committee, being Liberal members, would consider some of these good suggestions.

I would also like to commend the member from Haldimand—Norfolk and the member from Durham, because these two gentlemen have a lot of experience in the labour movement, and I respect them both for their knowledge and their involvement. They do bring a different perspective to the table. Not necessarily are our ideologies the same, but it's definitely constructive to have other ideas and to be able to come to a happy medium when you're dealing with these types of bills, because we have to deal with all factions of our society and have to be reasonable when we bring forth the legislation that's beneficial to all Ontarians.

So basically, in closing, I'd just like to say that this bill is an important bill, and I'm sure that when it gets to committee the process will be open and fair and everyone will take into deep consideration some of the suggestions that have been brought forward here today.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate? Seeing none, Mr. Fonseca has moved second reading of Bill 168. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All in favour, say "aye."

All opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. The bill is carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon. Michael Chan: I would ask that the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Social Policy.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): So ordered.

This House stands recessed until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Eric Hoskins: I would like to ask the members of the House to join me in welcoming the family of page Madeline Lewis. Madeline attends Winona Drive Senior Public School in St. Paul's. Here with us today are Madeleine's father, Mark Lewis; her grandfather Ray Barton; her grandmother Ginny Booth; her second grandmother Ann Lewis; and her aunt Clair Zangari. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Kim Craitor: I'm extremely pleased to introduce two special people from Niagara Falls, Doug James and Elisabeth Teunis. Both are very active in our community and have been involved with the Terry Fox run.

I also want to share something from Elisabeth, who particularly wanted to express her appreciation to the entire House. In 2006, Elisabeth was diagnosed with multiple myeloma, a cancer of the blood plasma that can be treated but not cured. Elisabeth just wants to say—and this is why she has come here today—thank you to the Ontario Legislature for approving Revlimid, a new cancer drug that will extend the life of many myeloma patients and that she herself may need at one time in the future. Again, thanks to the House for approving that.

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: They haven't come in yet, but it's my pleasure today to introduce Ms. Kinney's class from Kipling Collegiate. Her grade 10 civics class has come to observe the decorum of the House.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I trust everyone will co-operate with the minister and the students.

Mr. Charles Sousa: I would like to welcome to the Ontario Legislature a celebrated author, playwright, poet, professor and journalist from Portugal who won international acclaim when he was bestowed in 2008 with the PEN award in Europe. He joins us today at the invitation of community members and local universities to share his extensive work.

Please welcome Jaime Rocha, also known as Rui Ferreira Sousa. He is joined by his brother Jose Carlos Sousa, who is a long-time community activist, academic and businessman in Ontario.

As their surnames imply, they are related to this humble servant from Mississauga South; they're my cousins. Welcome to Queen's Park.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It's my pleasure to introduce the members of the delegation from the Ontario Long Term Care Association. They're here today for the association's first-ever Long-Term Care Day at Queen's Park in celebration of their inaugural Long-Term Care Week.

The Ontario Long Term Care Association is celebrating 50 years as the only association representing the full spectrum of Ontario's charitable not-for-profit municipal and private operators of over two thirds of the province's long-term-care homes.

With us in the gallery are: Grace Sweatman, CEO of Christie Gardens and the president of the OLTCA; David Cutler, CEO of Leisureworld Caregiving Centres and OLTCA's vice-president, government relations; Donna Kingelin, COO of Revera Living and OLTCA's vice-president, resident care and services; Robert Zober, treasurer of Collingwood Nursing Home and vice-president at large; and Christina Bisanz, CEO of the Ontario Long Term Care Association. Please welcome them.

M me France Gélinas: It is my pleasure to introduce Eoin Callan and Christine Miller, both representatives from SEIU; as well as Juan Vasquez. Juan is a hospital worker here in Toronto.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the member from Etobicoke North and page James Profiti, we'd like to welcome his mother, Cathy Profiti, and his father, Pat Profiti, to the Legislature today. Welcome to Queen's Park.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): As we have a new group of pages, I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce them. I ask the pages to assemble for introduction, please.

I'd like to ask all members to join me in welcoming this group of legislative pages serving in the first session of the 39th Parliament:

Vladislav Bardalez, Don Valley East; Rebecca Bartlett, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock; Elliott Brand, Mississauga—Erindale; Rebecca Briell, Ajax—Pickering; Timothy Choi, Bramalea—Gore—Malton; Kira Foreman-Tran, Oakville; Matthew Grossi, Vaughan; Shaan Ali Jessa, Richmond Hill; Emma Johnson, Kitchener Centre; Katelyn Johnstone, Mississauga—Brampton South; Henry Lenz, York—Simcoe; Madeline Lewis, St. Paul's; Nithya Nithiaraj, Scarborough—Rouge River; Jeremy Pagé, Nepean—Carleton; James Profiti, Etobicoke North; Bethany Ricker, Haldimand—Norfolk; Rushabh Shah, York West; Hannah Walters-Vida, Toronto—Danforth; and Jessica Webster, Whitby—Oshawa.

Welcome to Queen's Park. Enjoy your visit.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question for the Premier: When federal Liberals wasted $100 million on the sponsorship scandal, they called the Gomery inquiry. The McGuinty Liberals wasted a billion dollars on the eHealth boondoggle. Premier, given that, why aren't you calling a public inquiry?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: With every day, the leader of the official opposition expresses his continuing disappointment with the auditor's work. I don't share that opinion. I have every confidence in the auditor. I thought that my friends supported our invitation to the auditor to accelerate the work he was already doing at eHealth. As I said many times before, we fully accept the findings of the auditor's report. We thought he was nothing less than thorough, as is fully in keeping with his practice, and we adopt every one of the recommendations and we accept every single one of his findings as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: In fact, we have full confidence in the auditor because he, quite frankly, had the guts to ask the questions that this Premier was afraid to ask of his own cabinet ministers.

Just like Sheila Fraser found with the federal Liberals, Ontario's auditor found that two thirds of the deals handed out by the McGuinty Liberals were sole-sourced, that Management Board meddled with the rules so it could award untendered contracts, that the McGuinty government obstructed the Auditor General's investigation for six months, and that favouritism showed by the McGuinty government influenced who received millions of dollars in untendered contracts.

As we know, the Deputy Premier, Minister Smitherman, is linked to at least three of the four findings. Is the Premier refusing to call an inquiry because he's trying to protect George Smitherman?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I just think that what we owe Ontarians on this side of the House is a heavy responsibility to draw what lessons we might from the events that unfolded at eHealth, to accept the auditor's findings and to stay away from political gamesmanship, because there's one particular finding and conclusion reached in the auditor's report that my honourable colleague refuses to accept, notwithstanding how many times I bring it to his attention, as I'll do once again right now.

What the auditor said on page 11 of his report is, "We were aware of the allegations that 'party politics' may have entered into the awarding of contracts and that those awarding the contracts may have obtained a personal benefit from the firms getting the work—but we saw no evidence of this during our work." I think "no evidence" is pretty conclusive.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: I recommend that the Premier read the Auditor General's report. The findings of the provincial auditor are more damning of Minister Smitherman and the McGuinty government than what Sheila Fraser had to say about Alfonso Gagliano and the federal Liberals. Prime Minister Chrétien was not mentioned a single time in the federal auditor's report; Premier McGuinty's name appears seven times in the provincial auditor's report. The auditor found that Sarah Kramer was the Premier's hand-picked appointment and that the Premier set the wheels in motion that resulted in the massive untendered-contract spending spree at eHealth.

I ask, is the Premier refusing to call an inquiry because he is just out to protect himself?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Obviously, I'm in my honourable colleague's hands when it comes to pursuing this particular debate and public conversation, but I don't really see it leading anywhere. I think our shared responsibility now is to find a way to move forward to ensure that we put into practice all the recommendations put forward by the auditor, and we undertake to do that.

Beyond that, before we received the auditor's report—it's important that I draw to my colleague's attention once again, as well as to the attention of Ontarians, that we have a new rule in place. If you are a consultant and you want to get a contract with the province of Ontario, you must be part of a competitive bidding process. We think that goes a long way to ensuring that the kinds of practices that were in place admittedly on our watch and also on the watch of the previous two governments are no longer going to be allowed in Ontario.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: All this, sadly, seems to be leading to more stonewalling by Premier McGuinty, who seems more interested in protecting himself or his Deputy Premier than getting answers for taxpayers, who saw $1 billion go down the drain in this eHealth boondoggle. Of that money, $837 million happened under Minister Smitherman's watch. That's 78% of what the McGuinty government wasted on this boondoggle under your Deputy Premier, with nothing to show for it for Ontario families across our province.

Why isn't the Premier calling an inquiry into Minister Smitherman's role in this billion-dollar boondoggle?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I understand where my colleague is coming from on this score. For him, it's all about politics and it's all about games. I accept that that's the particular perspective on that, but I think we have something greater by way of a duty that we owe to the people of Ontario.

One of the things that we need to keep in mind is what in fact eHealth has succeeded in accomplishing to this point in time. So far, more than four million Ontarians are already participating in the electronic medical records program. More than one million children have an electronic health record and more than 80,000 Ontarians are in a pilot project for ePrescribing, which will help save lives. We've laid an important foundation.

There is more work to be done. We accept that, and we look forward to getting on with that work rather than engaging continuously in these political games.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: The Premier may see $1 billion down the drain as some kind of political game; I see it as an extraordinary betrayal of hard-working taxpayers who put money in and trusted in you to spend it the right way.

Premier, I'm sure you know by now that the man sitting to your right, the Deputy Premier of the province, saw $837 million wasted during his tenure at the Ministry of Health. That is, to put it in perspective, over eight times more than what Alfonso Gagliano spent on the Liberal-friendly advertising firms in the sponsorship scandal. Minister Smitherman himself referred to the agency before eHealth as a "cesspool," but Minister Smitherman ran that program for five of six years, and he is the one who built that cesspool. Premier, will you call a public inquiry and get to the bottom of this growing scandal?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: What I find scandalous is the leader of the official opposition continually asserting that activities that took place at eHealth were connected with some kind of party politics, and his refusal to accept the very specific and explicit finding of the auditor. I want to draw to his attention once again his finding: "We were aware of the allegation," undoubtedly coming from the official opposition and others, "that 'party politics' may have entered into the awarding of contracts ... but we saw no evidence of this during our work." Again, I think it's pretty clear, I think it's pretty explicit, and I think we all share responsibility to accept that finding.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, as you know, Minister Smitherman remained involved in eHealth even after you shuffled him to the Ministry of Infrastructure. He has kept his fingers in procurements, the diabetes registry and the drug information system. Contracts were handed out to Karli Farrow, his former chief of staff and adviser to you, yourself, Premier. Management Board, upon which Minister Smitherman sits, handed out an untendered contract that by itself alone is one third of what the federal Liberals wasted in the sponsorship scandal.

Premier, there are 837 million reasons to question Minister Smitherman's role in the eHealth scandal. Will you call a public inquiry today?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: No, I won't. I've said that several times over and I'm not sure I can be any more direct than that.

As in all of these matters, I not only trust the auditor but have a great deal of confidence in the people of Ontario, who ultimately will stand in judgment of all these things. I believe that the people of Ontario have confidence in the auditor's findings; I believe that they accept our commitment to putting in place every single one of his recommendations. I believe that Ontarians want to find a way together to move forward with the foundation on which we've built the beginnings of our structure for eHealth. I think Ontarians want us to move forward. That's what we accept on this side of the House, and that's what we are going to do.

HEALTH CARE

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le premier ministre également. The scandal surrounding eHealth just keeps going: $1 billion spent and very little to show for it. We've witnessed top bureaucrats being paid out of hospital budgets, exorbitant expense accounts, and untendered consulting contracts at Cancer Care Ontario. Yet last week my leader, Andrea Horwath, asked the Premier to call in the Auditor General to do spot checks on the Ministry of Health consultant contracts. Tomorrow I will bring a motion forward in the public accounts committee asking the auditor to do just that.

My question to the Premier is simple: Will the Premier assure us that the Liberal members on public accounts will be allowed to support this motion?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: What I will assure the honourable member and the auditor, of course, is that he has every right, at the time and in the subject matter of his own choosing, to intervene and to conduct an investigation, however thoroughly he might wish to pursue that. That includes, of course, the spot checks being recommended by my colleague. Obviously, we would support any effort on the part of the auditor to conduct any such spot checks wherever he deems it to be appropriate.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

M me France Gélinas: I take it that means they will vote in favour of my motion. I'm looking forward to that vote tomorrow.

While $1 billion was wasted, front-line workers have been calling for reinforcements to protect hospital patients from infections. Today in the gallery is Juan Vasquez. Juan is a front-line health care worker in a Toronto hospital just down the street from here.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Please make sure it ties into your original question.

M me France Gélinas: Yes.

He is worried that the hospitals are failing in the fight against infection and that we are not prepared for H1N1.

How can this government find money for multi-million-dollar consulting contracts but leave our hospitals ill-prepared to protect their patients from the spread of infectious diseases within their own walls? The tie-in is money, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: As I had the opportunity to say earlier today, and I think in this House yesterday as well, when it comes to hospital budgets, we have in fact increased those by some 42% during the course of the last six years. If we compare that to what has happened with the cost of living, it has gone up by about 11%. We've made some dramatic new investments in our hospital budgets.

We look forward to continuing to find ways to work with the hospital sector and all those good people who serve the public in the delivery of health care services, whether inside the hospital sector or outside. We will find ways, working together, notwithstanding our financial challenges, to continue to inspire confidence in our health care system.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Money, like a billion dollars that goes out the door at eHealth with no improvement in patient care, is not what we want. Fifty hospitals are facing deficits. We all know that the first area a hospital looks at for cuts is housekeeping. The Auditor General's special report has proven that these cuts put patients at risk. Juan is here today because he wants a commitment from the Premier. Will the Premier commit to ensuring our precious health care dollars are spent on improving patient care?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We will do everything in our power to ensure that we get good value for taxpayer dollars when it comes to the money we invest in every public program, but especially in health care.

I think we have gone a long way to demonstrating the value that we've got in return for those significant new investments in the health care system, whether you're taking a look at the number of new hospitals that are being built; whether it's the older hospitals which are undergoing reconstruction and renovation; whether you're looking at the number of new doctors and nurses who are out there practising and serving Ontario families; whether it's the number of new MRIs and other kinds of technology, treatments and drugs which we've been funding anew.

I think we're demonstrating that we are in fact getting good value for the new investments that we continue to make in health care for all our families.

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Premier. There's a new lottery in Ontario. It's called Consultant Max and it pays out more than $1 million a day but you've got to be a consultant to play. I've got right here a freedom of information on some of the things that have been going on which shows that the McGuinty Liberals spent nearly $400 million on high-priced consultants last year alone. That doesn't include consultant spending at agencies, boards and commissions. Given the eHealth consultant debacle, how does the Premier explain this million-dollar give-away whopper?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I don't think it's particularly news that governments and the Ontario government have been availing themselves of the special expertise and services offered by consultants. Governments of all political stripes have been doing that for some time. What I can confirm is that we have reduced the use of consultants by 34% since 2003 when it comes to the amount of money we're investing in consultants.

What we want to do, in keeping with the advice that we received from the auditor's most recent report, is enhance the skill set of people working inside the public service so that we can continue to rely less and less on outside expertise and have that expertise more and more in-house because we have confidence in our public service to be able to do that for us.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Paul Miller: Each and every day across Ontario we're hearing about cuts to vulnerable kids, to unemployed workers, to community hospitals, all the while this government blows more than a million bucks a day on consultants. It's simply outrageous. The Ministry of Consumer Services burned through $100 million on consultants in 2008. The Ministry of Health spent $89 million.

I ask the Premier again: During these difficult economic times, how can he possibly justify this kind of spending on consultants?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Just to restate it, again, we have made some progress. There's more work to be done, but I think the progress we've made is significant. Since 2003, we've reduced the use of consultants by some 34%.

Now, my honourable colleague made reference to cuts—it's become fashionable these days to talk in those terms—but the fact of the matter is, in virtually every single program, we have continued to invest, year over year, more, especially in our most important public services like health care and education. So I would caution my colleague as he talks about cuts to revisit the budget and to see in fact that we continue to invest more money, especially in those public services that our families absolutely have to be able to count on.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Mr. Paul Miller: Clearly, the government has lost its way. Vulnerable kids, unemployed workers and seniors are all told to make due with less, while well-connected consultants feast at the McGuinty government trough. When is this Premier going to say enough is enough? When is he finally going to end this government's million-dollar-a-day addiction to consultants and their bloated fees?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I think that a 34% reduction in the use of consultants since 2003 is significant progress. Again, I accept the auditor's recommendation, particularly insofar as it related to eHealth, where he said that what you should do is further reduce the use of consultants and see if you can adopt that expertise in-house, and that's something we look forward to doing.

My colleague continues to make reference to the fact of cuts when it comes to vulnerable kids or the unemployed, and in fact that's simply not true. We continue to invest new dollars year over year in enhancing the investments that we make and in the program funding levels for those kinds of programs. We look forward to working with all of our partners now, notwithstanding the fact that we all stare into some pretty challenging financial times.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Premier of Ontario. An auditor's report into the waste of taxpayer dollars by Liberals said, "We are disturbed not only by the widespread circumvention of the competitive ... process ... but also by the fact that this was permitted to occur at all."

This Premier says he accepts the Provincial Auditor's report in its totality, so he should be able to tell us, did this criticism come from Sheila Fraser's report on the sponsorship scandal or did it come from the Provincial Auditor's report on the McGuinty Liberals eHealth scandal?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm not sure what the point of this question is, and I have not memorized the report word for word, but I can say, as I've said before, that we accept every finding. We will adopt every single recommendation put forward by the auditor. We think it was thorough. We think his response was perfectly appropriate in the circumstances, and that's why we're going to move ahead with all of his recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The Premier remembers one quote in a 48-page document, but the previous quote is from the federal auditor's report on the sponsorship scandal. But the Provincial Auditor said, "Sound and reasonable policies were in place to ensure that all suppliers could compete fairly ... but all too often the rules were not followed."

Which level of government this auditor was criticizing doesn't really matter, and it hasn't really changed. How can one auditor's findings lead to the Gomery inquiry while the other's leads to Premier McGuinty hiding what Minister Smitherman and his McGuinty Liberals have done to hide and waste one billion in taxpayer dollars?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It's not too hard to figure out what the opposition is doing—Gomery, the sponsorship scandal, and let's see what we can do to link eHealth into that.

We have an objective third party who's intervened in this matter: the Provincial Auditor. I would encourage my colleague to review that report again and again and again to come to fully understand the advice to be found therein, and to accept, as we do, the recommendations put forward by the auditor, which is why we'll be moving forward on each and every one of those.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Premier. Premier, thanks to the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, many Toronto-area drivers are about to be slammed with double-digit auto insurance hikes. In fact, by the end of this year the average GTA driver is likely to pay nearly 14% more for auto insurance.

When will this government finally stop caving in to every demand of the private auto insurance industry? When will this government draw the line on rate increases and fundamentally rethink a system that every driver and every consumer knows simply does not work?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think it's important to keep in mind exactly what has happened to auto insurance rates in Ontario during the course of the past six years. During the course of the past six years, auto insurance premiums have come down by 2%. Again, if you compare that with what has happened with the cost of living, I think it's rather extraordinary that auto insurance premiums today, on average, are less than they were some six years ago. I think that speaks to the good policies that we've had in place.

Perhaps understandably, cost pressures have been mounting. Insurance companies have gone to FSCO, the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, and applied for rate increases. They've been granted that. Minister Duncan will be moving forward shortly with a new proposal. I'm not sure it's the kind that my honourable colleague has in mind. It is not public auto insurance. It is a new proposal that will deal with, we think, a still better way to ensure that we strike the right balance between affordability and coverage for our drivers.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: The Premier may not like them, but here are the facts. Ten large insurers are being allowed to raise their rates for a second or third time in the last 12 months. Their policyholders will be hit with increases averaging between 11% and 19%. For some Toronto-area drivers, the rate increases could total 30% or more, depending on the age of the driver or the neighbourhood in which they live.

Clearly, the auto insurance system makes no sense and is not working for consumers. Will this government use this crisis to launch a full-scale review of Ontario's badly broken auto insurance system?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to remind my honourable colleague that when we first earned the privilege of serving Ontarians as their government back in 2003, we immediately froze rates. Their party did not support that. We then put in place new rules that have achieved, after six years, a 2% net reduction in auto insurance premiums. Their party did not support that.

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

Mr. Bruce Crozier: My question is for the Minister of Consumer Services. Like many of my colleagues in this House, I enjoy a glass of wine from time to time, and like many of my colleagues in this Legislature, I enjoy a glass of Ontario wine in particular. But there is some confusion existing around the labelling and the content of wines in Ontario, and in Canada for that matter. That's around the words "cellared in Canada." What that really means is that that wine can contain up to 70% of foreign-produced grapes.

What I would like to ask the minister is, what are we doing to increase consumer understanding and to encourage the purchase of local—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: My thanks to the honourable member from Essex.

Just last week, my ministry announced key structural changes to the Ontario wine industry in order to lay the groundwork for long-term sustainable growth and increase clarity for Ontario consumers.

I invite you to listen to the words of Mr. Seaton McLean, the proprietor of Closson Chase vineyards and chair of the Price Edward County Winegrowers Association, responding to this announcement in a column in the Hamilton Spec: "The McGuinty government looked at the fork in the road and thankfully chose a better path for Ontario's wine industry." He continues, "The province will now ensure VQA wines (by definition made with 100% Ontario grapes) are prioritized by the LCBO, will increase the levy on blended wines to fund its ... support" of—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Bruce Crozier: I'm going to continue because I'm pleased to hear what we're doing for Vintners Quality Alliance wines in Ontario. Minister, I know that the residents of my riding are very proud of the high-quality VQA wines that are produced in the Erie North Shore region as well as the other regions of Ontario. I know that those 13 wineries in particular in my riding are pleased and ready to produce more and better VQA wines.

Minister, how will your ministry support the continued growth of VQA wines?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: There is a common Latin saying, "in vino veritas," or "in wine there is truth." The Ministry of Consumer Services is committed to ensuring that Ontarians know the truth about the wine they're buying and committed to supporting the continued growth of high-quality Ontario VQA wines.

I want to continue with quoting Mr. McLean, who says, "Under the package of reforms announced last week it's now possible to imagine what the industry can become ... we can now envision a scenario that would allow growers and vintners to plant new varietals, deepen our specializations and experiment with new possibilities....

"With this announcement, a significant number of greenbelt farmers and their municipal leaders can now focus more of their energy on how to tap into that massive market and grow jobs as well as" good-quality "grapes."

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Minister of Health. Now that you've been briefed on your portfolio, Minister, who do you say is more responsible for sole-sourced and untendered contracts to Minister Smitherman's former chief of staff: David Caplan or Minister Smitherman himself?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you for the question. The Auditor General gave us a very important report. We are, as has been said over and over again in this House, completely committed to implementing every single recommendation he has made.

I'm more interested in moving forward than looking backward. I think that what's important is that we learn from the past but that we continue—moving forward on eHealth is a very high priority for us. The future of our health care system depends on us moving forward when it comes to eHealth.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: The Minister of Health must be concerned about the billion dollars the McGuinty government wasted when it should have been going to health care. Minister Matthews must also be concerned about carrying the Deputy Premier's dirty laundry from all the bid-rigging and favouritism Minister Smitherman showered on his former chief of staff. The Premier has made it clear that he'll toss the sitting minister under the bus while giving Minister Smitherman a free ride.

My question is: Will Minister Matthews table her mandate letter today so the Ontario taxpayers can judge the government's plans for getting out of this mess, or will she support our call for a public inquiry?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: My mandate is very clear. My mandate is to continue with the very excellent work that has been done by the two ministers of health that preceded me. I don't think any Minister of Health has accomplished more than Mr. Smitherman and Mr. Caplan.

When it comes to eHealth, I just think it's really important that we look at the truth rather than look at the fiction across the way. We have made big progress on eHealth. As the Premier said, we've now got 80,000 Ontarians on ePrescribing, a very important pilot program. More than four million out of 13 million already have electronic medical records. We've got a million kids now in Ontario with electronic health records. All of our hospitals are now filmless. That is a very big step forward. We're not going to have those old X-ray films that we used to have. We don't have them anymore; everything is digital. That's real progress.

The drug profile viewer provides—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question is for the Minister of Training. Minister, it's very nice that your ministry is accepting applications for the Second Career program, but surely the minister would never want to leave the impression that any of these unemployed workers are actually going to be placed any time soon. You rejected qualified applicants for September and October, and now you and the assistant deputy are talking about January intake.

Minister, when is your ministry going to get its act together, and when can unemployed workers expect to have complete access to Second Career?

Hon. John Milloy: I would like to think the fact that our ministry accepted 10,000 applicants in the month of September demonstrates that we've got our act together.

We brought forward the Second Career program 16 months ago with the target of welcoming 20,000 applicants over the course of three years. In the course of 16 months, we have welcomed 21,000 individuals into the program. They are in the process of studying at our community colleges and our private career colleges.

As I've indicated in the House before, we are in the process of reviewing the program and hope to come forward with new guidelines toward the end of November, with an eye on the January target. In the interim, we are still approving applications on a limited basis.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: As an example, this would be like a hospital announcing that once they had treated 20,000 patients, they weren't going to treat any more, regardless of the need.

The government claims that the popularity of the Second Career program is "unprecedented," yet you are cutting the program—so popular it is, and so effective, that you are cutting the program.

When your ministry talks about sustainability and realistic expectations, it means that unemployed workers in places like Windsor and Waterloo are not going to have access to the program. These people need help, and they need it now. If we can get another 20,000 who are on EI or are facing welfare into good jobs, paying taxes, why wouldn't we do that as soon as possible?

Hon. John Milloy: I have trouble with the honourable member's logic. The idea that we had a program designed for 20,000 over three years, we accepted 21,000 over 16 months, we continue to accept individuals into the program and are in the process of redesigning it with a commitment to moving forward—I do not see how that equals cuts.

The fact of the matter is, we are continuing Second Career despite the fact that that honourable member and his colleagues stood up in the House week after week, criticized it, mocked it and said it was no good. We did not listen to them. We are proceeding with Second Career, and we have many dozens, hundreds of stories throughout the province of individuals who are receiving training and are in the process of changing their lives.

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: My question is to the Minister of Education. As we all know, these are challenging economic times. The constituents in my riding of Northumberland—Quinte West want to see value for their tax dollars. They also want to be sure that student transportation is safe. It is important that we ensure the funds the provincial government provides for student transportation are spent in a way that gives taxpayers value for their money while at the same time offering quality and efficient services.

Minister, I have been reading stories in our local papers and I have heard from local representatives of the Ontario School Bus Association in my community on the issue of student transportation. Our local operators are concerned about planned changes in the procurement of student transportation to move to a request-for-proposal system.

Would the minister tell the House how her plans regarding competition in student transportation will evolve?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It's a very good question. I appreciate the member for Northumberland—Quinte West, and I especially appreciate his advocacy on behalf of his community and small school bus operators—very important.

When we came into office, we found that procurement for student transportation wasn't what it should have been. There were too many contracts that were being renewed without competition or without any review. So we brought in efficiency reviews; we started a committee on procurement practices that included operators, board officials and ministry officials; last year we ran a request-for-proposals pilot in three boards—we got information from that; and beyond education, the Ministry of Finance introduced broader public service supply chain guidelines which establish that all entities will have to have fair, open and transparent procurement processes.

We're committed to a fair process; we're also committed to working with school bus operators so that small, medium and large operators can have a role to play in the provision of student transportation.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Minister, no one wants to experience disruption or reduced quality of student transportation during the transition to the competition basis. Student transportation is an important service on which many Ontario families rely, particularly in rural communities like mine. Parents count on their school bus to pick up the children on time to go to school and bring them home safely at the end of the day.

The local operators I've met with are concerned about too fast a transition to a new model. In my community, these are valuable jobs, especially in this economic climate, and local school bus operators are worried for the future of their businesses and the effect it will have on our communities. They are also concerned about the state of student transportation.

Minister, will you work with the industry to ensure this plan is the best it can be?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to reassure the member and all of the members that I've met with representatives from the Ontario School Bus Association—I've been to their AGMs—and I've met with the independent operators as well. I appreciate their willingness to work with us to come up with solutions to what are really difficult problems. What I've told them is that we're committed to providing the support and the time that the industry needs to achieve a smooth transition to ensure a continuation of the high level of service and also to introduce competition into the process.

The ultimate decisions on which the competitive models will rest will rest with the board. Those decisions will rest with the board, but I have said that we have a complete willingness to support a variety of models. I think that's what the industry has been asking for. I've indicated a willingness to work with any proposals that are competitive in price and fall within the supply chain guidelines. I think that the public appreciates and would support that. We want to see a mix of small, medium and—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is for the Premier. Premier, small business owners and families are working harder than ever with less to show for it. Now it looks like you're hitting them again because Minister Duncan has been sitting on the auto insurance report for over six months. Insurance companies are preparing to increase rates by up to 30%, which will cost an average family $200 more. Premier, are you holding your breath and waiting for the scandals to end before taking action?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I had the opportunity to speak to this a few moments ago. I think my honourable colleague recognizes that—maybe he's not aware that about 100 submissions have been received from various interested parties; 12 meetings have been held with partners to discuss their submissions. The minister has been meeting with key partners on a number of proposals, and he does intend to introduce a new proposal which we think will help ensure that we continue to strike the right balance between affordability of rates, availability of insurers and the appropriate levels of protection for our drivers.

We're proud of the record that we have in place after six years. The insurance rates are 2% below where they were some six years ago, but obviously there's more work to be done, and Minister Duncan will be speaking to that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Norm Miller: Proud of your record? We have the most expensive auto insurance in North America, and you're proud of your record? Give me a break.

Canada's worst government has been so distracted by scandals at OLG, eHealth, WSIB and elsewhere, they are failing to do their basic job. Small businesses and Ontario families are the ones left paying the price. They're facing auto insurance increases of up to 30%. Ontario deserves better. Businesses and families simply do not have the luxury of waiting for the scandals to end for you to get around to fixing the problem. Premier, when will you act?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to take the opportunity to remind my honourable colleague of his government's record. It may have been out of mind. Rates went up 43%—

Interjection.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know my honourable colleague is going to want to hear this. Rates went up 43% in their last three years of office; in our first six years of office, rates have gone down 2%—up 43%, down 2%. When we introduced a proposal here in this House to freeze rates, they voted against that. When we put in place our new law to better manage rates, they voted against that.

We know that there are more difficult times coming. That's why we're going to be moving ahead with a new proposal, and I ask my friend to remain patient until Minister Duncan shortly introduces a new proposal. We look forward to receiving their support at that time.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Minister, you will know that child and family services agencies were notified in the spring of a reduction in budget as a result of the exercise that you've engaged in to reduce their budgets. Le centre Jeanne Sauvé, which is the child protection agency in the Kapuskasing, Hearst and Smooth Rock Falls area, is seeing an 18% reduction in their budget this year if your plan goes forward. That 18% means they may have to lay off as much as a third of their staff, and, quite frankly, will put them in a position not to be able to deliver the services that they're mandated to deliver under the act.

My question to you is simply this: In light of that 18% reduction that you're handing them, how do you expect them to provide essential services that they have been mandated to do under the act, such as protecting children from harm, abuse and neglect?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak about this really important issue. Children's aid societies across the province do some of the most important work and that's why our government has been a government that has invested significantly in children's aid societies. Over 385 million additional dollars have been put forward to children's aid societies since 2003-04, and in this year alone, an additional $30 million more than their budget last year.

What is different this year is that in light of the economic circumstances across the province, in June of this year, children's aid societies were told that we would not be able to top up their budget at year-end, but that we would be working with them, both on a local basis and an across-the-province basis, to find a sustainable pathway to ensure that children's aid societies can put kids' interests first. That's our first priority. We need to focus on the outcomes for Ontario's kids, and we're absolutely committed to doing that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I think the people in the Kapuskasing area and I want to know what class of mathematics you attended, because when they look at their budget, it is not an increase, it is a decrease in budget. They're looking at over $700,000 that will be eliminated from their budget. They have to deliver these services. This Legislature has passed legislation that says that they are mandated to protect children in this province, and you are, by reducing their budget, putting them in a position that they can't do that.

So I ask you again: Stop with the gobbledegook about your math class that you took 50 years ago and talk about what you're going to do to provide the dollars so that they can match the services that they're required to give.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Let me put some real numbers on the table for the member opposite, and let me tell him what is happening across Ontario with the transformation that we have brought forward with respect to children's aid societies. For the children's aid society mentioned, they have received a 35% funding increase, and at the same time, kids in their care are down by 25%.

We need to work at a regional level with children's aid societies, and we are. Regional offices are meeting regularly with them to look at whether they can establish partnerships and how we can better serve Ontario's kids. It's incumbent upon all of us to look for solutions where children's aid societies can prosper in the long term. That's what I'm committed to doing. That's what our commission will be undertaking. We need to look at a modern approach, and all of the kids in Ontario are counting on us to work collectively to do just that.

IMMIGRANTS

Mr. Charles Sousa: My question is to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. My riding of Mississauga South is very diverse. We depend on and celebrate the economic and cultural contributions that newcomers make in our community. In fact, every summer, Mississaugans celebrate our diversity with our renowned annual Carassauga Festival of Cultures, which marks its 25th anniversary next year.

Successful businesses now know that hiring newcomers is critical to their operations. Governments and employers share responsibility to ensure that there are policies in place to promote diversity in the workplace. However, labour shortages are anticipated, and within five years, immigration will likely account for most or all of Ontario's net labour force growth. Newcomers are an essential part of our labour force growth, and we need and deserve to have opportunities to put their skills to use and help Ontario and Canada compete globally. We can't wait. Ontario needs to be prepared—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank the member from Mississauga South for the question. Just this Friday, I had the distinct pleasure of attending the changing workforce diversity forum hosted by the Working Skills Centre, the Toronto Training Board and the Working Women Community Centre. The forum explored ways of overcoming barriers in Canada's workplaces. Discussions were centred on supporting groups such as immigrants, minority groups and persons with disabilities. These discussions put forward ideas and visions that include more inclusive communities and workplaces.

Our government is committed to the same vision: a place where all Ontarians are able to put forth their best. Ontario's future economic and social prosperity relies on our ability to develop a more inclusive society for all Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Charles Sousa: As you know, our economy transcends the borders of Ontario. It's truly a global province in nature. Skilled newcomers bring significant expertise to the workplace and make us globally competitive, so this is in all of our interests. We must tap into our highly skilled pool of newcomer talent who are currently underemployed or unemployed. Providing newcomers an inclusive environment in which to succeed is the right thing to do and will lead to an increase in Ontario's productivity. We need to build workplaces that are more diverse and more inclusive. We need to provide supports to new Canadians so that they are able and ready to take on new opportunities.

All of us recognize that better utilizing Ontario's diversity will further our economic goals. Minister, how then is the government supporting and utilizing diversity in the workplace?

Hon. Michael Chan: Diversity is ingrained in the economic, cultural and social fabric of Ontario. Diversity is not about being able to tolerate; it's about being able to embrace and cultivate. Yes, in Ontario we embrace and cultivate, and in return we are fortunate to benefit from the riches that diversity brings to Ontario.

That's exactly what we did in Mississauga. The skills of newcomers were cultivated by AyA Kitchens and Baths in partnership with the Halton District School Board to provide on-site language training specific to their areas of employment.

We are proud to have supported these successful programs for the benefit of newcomers. We are committed to unlocking the riches of diversity by investing in our diverse communities.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

Mr. Frank Klees: To the minister responsible for children: 36 out of 51 children's aid societies in the province are facing a funding crisis. The York Region CAS is one of those, but it's even more critical because that agency is already receiving the lowest per-unit funding in the GTA. To make matters worse, it has now been advised that it is facing a $5.5-million cut to its existing budget. The minister has a letter from the agency advising her that vulnerable children will be at risk if, in fact, this cut is imposed.

So I ask the minister: How, in good conscience, can she say, as she did yesterday, that the most important resource in this province is our children, and yet defend these cuts? Will she agree to personally intervene to review her ministry's flawed funding formula, and specifically its effect on York region?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I do think it is imperative that we look at what has transpired with children's aid societies over the past decade. I'll acknowledge in this place that we have seen an unsustainable level of increases to children's aid societies, from $500 million 10 years ago to $1.4 billion now. We need to work with children's aid societies such as the York CAS to ensure that children are put first and that their outcomes are a priority.

That's why one of the early telephone calls that I made in this role in which I'm privileged to serve was directly to the chair of the board at York CAS. I invited her to continue working with our regional office. Our regional office is currently working with the York CAS to develop a financial plan to address the challenges. They understand, and we understand, that that plan might be one that is multi-year. We all need to work collectively to ensure that we're meeting the goals. There's another meeting—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: When the minister considers that her government wasted more than $1 billion on scandalous contracts to consultants, one would think that if she does in fact believe, as she said she does, that our children are our most valuable asset, she would challenge her colleagues to prioritize funding for the most vulnerable children in our society.

On the one hand, the minister legislates what services must be provided yet, on the other hand, refuses to fund the delivery of those services. The minister should either ensure that the funding matches the mandate or direct the agency as to which child protection laws they should be breaking and provide the appropriate liability support and protection for the agencies because they cannot deliver the mandated protection services that—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: The current funding formula was developed in consultation with children's aid societies, and it reflects historical costs with respect to the CASs.

In the York circumstance in particular, I can tell you that the York CAS has received a funding increase in the amount of 34.4% since 2003-04, and 188% since—

Mr. Frank Klees: That is not true.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd just ask the honourable member from Newmarket to withdraw the comment, please.

Mr. Frank Klees: That is not true.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd ask the honourable member to withdraw the comment, please.

Mr. Frank Klees: I withdraw, but it's not true.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would ask that the honourable member withdraw the comment, please.

Mr. Frank Klees: I reluctantly withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would just ask that you withdraw the comment.

Mr. Frank Klees: This is tough—very, very difficult. I withdraw but, Speaker, we have a problem here.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I need the honourable member to please stand and say, "I withdraw the comment."

Mr. Frank Klees: I withdraw.

GO TRANSIT

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Since January, GO-Metrolinx's West Toronto Diamond pile-driving project has been subjecting residents near the tracks to deafening noise and vibration. Last week, in condemnation of the pile-driving project, the Canadian Transportation Agency ruled "that the prolonged exposure to the local citizens to the noise and vibration ... is unreasonable given the nature of the area in which the construction is taking place."

Given this condemnation by a federal agency, will the minister now admit that the West Toronto Diamond piledriving is causing egregious harm to the residents?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I know that Gerard Kennedy, the federal member for the area, raised this matter with that particular body to which you make reference, the Canadian Transportation Agency. Mr. Kennedy has been vociferous in representing his constituents in this particular matter, something I appreciate so very much.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Deal with provincial issues, not federal members, please.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Well, she asked a federal question. What you asked is a federal question.

The member for Parkdale—High Park, the member for Davenport and many people have raised this issue. GO Transit has taken many actions which I will deal with in my supplementary to alleviate some of the concerns of the people. There's no question that when you undertake projects of this kind there is disruption to the people in the area, and they have a legitimate beef when they hear all of that noise. They're doing—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It was actually the work of the coalition of the West Toronto Diamond pile-driving residents' association that brought this whole issue forward to the Canadian Transportation Agency, so thank you for that—and it is a provincial issue; GO-Metrolinx is a provincial agency. Among other things, the CTA stated that Metrolinx should use significantly quieter vibratory technology, expand on the shrouds already in place and also limit the hours of pile-driving. The CTA also echoed an ongoing complaint that Metrolinx needs to open the lines of communication between its organization and the residents.

When will you concede that this project has been an unmitigated disaster that has weakened the public image of GO-Metrolinx?

Hon. James J. Bradley: That party gets up time and again and asks for public transit projects. When those projects are built, they aren't built without some disruption. I understand that—the same as when the TTC undertakes its projects. Perhaps you'll want to talk to the TTC.

What they have done already is restricted hours for the piling work; noise shrouds on the pile drivers; alternative types of pile drivers; temporary noise reducing walls; a telephone line; and an e-mail address for residents to contact GO. GO is in the process of reviewing and assessing the CTA's proposed measures and