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

May 12, 2005

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2005-May-12 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 12 May 2005 Jeudi 12 mai 2005

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

BREAST IMPLANT REGISTRY ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LE REGISTRE

DES IMPLANTS MAMMAIRES

APPRENTICESHIP AND CERTIFICATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'APPRENTISSAGE ET LA RECONNAISSANCE

PROFESSIONNELLE

BREAST IMPLANT REGISTRY ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LE REGISTRE

DES IMPLANTS MAMMAIRES

APPRENTICESHIP AND CERTIFICATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'APPRENTISSAGE ET LA RECONNAISSANCE PROFESSIONNELLE

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

POLICE OFFICERS

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

AGRICULTURE FUNDING

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

AGRICULTURE FUNDING

PUBLIC HEALTH

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

ONTARIO BUDGET

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

EDUCATION FUNDING /

SUBVENTIONS DESTINÉES À L'ÉDUCATION

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

EDUCATION FUNDING

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

EDUCATION FUNDING

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO BUDGET

AGRICULTURE FUNDING

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

SOCIAL SERVICES

AGRICULTURE FUNDING

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

AGRICULTURE FUNDING

NURSES

AGRICULTURE FUNDING

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

HIGHWAY 69

HEALTH CARE

PETITIONS

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

LESLIE M. FROST CENTRE

REFUNDABLE CONTAINERS

EYE EXAMINATIONS

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

HALTON RECYCLING PLANT

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

ONTARIO FARMERS

TENANT PROTECTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

2005 ONTARIO BUDGET

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

BREAST IMPLANT REGISTRY ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LE REGISTRE

DES IMPLANTS MAMMAIRES

Ms. Churley moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 192,

An Act to establish and maintain a provincial Breast Implant Registry / Projet de loi 192, Loi prévoyant l'établissement et la tenue d'un

registre provincial des implants mammaires.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Ms. Churley has moved ballot item number 67. Pursuant to standing order 96, Ms. Churley, you have up to

10 minutes.

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I find it fitting that this may be perhaps my last private member's bill in this place, looking at

what's going on in Ottawa. As you know, I will be leaving this place to throw my hat in the ring federally. It's very fitting, I believe, that I'm bringing forward today a very important, and long

overdue, serious women's health issue.

Before I explain it a little more, I want to acknowledge Joyce Attis, who joined me in a press conference the other day and who is with us. She is an implant

survivor, a women's health advocate and founder of the Breast Implant Line of Canada. I thank her for all the incredible hard work she has done to make people aware of the risks associated with

breast implants.

I also want to acknowledge the work of Madeline Boscoe and Kathleen O'Grady of the Canadian Women's Health Network; Ann Pederson, BC Centre of Excellence for

Women's Health Network; Ann Pederson, BC Centre for Excellence in Women's Health; Aleina Tweed, epidemiologist, BC Centre for Disease Control; Anne Rochon Ford, coordinator, Women and Health

Protection; Judy Wasylycia-Leis, federal NDP MP and long-time women's health advocate; and Audrey McLaughlin, former leader of the Canadian NDP. They have all done tremendous work in this area.

This registry is a long overdue measure to protect women's health. Such registries have existed for a long time, and quite successfully, in the UK, Denmark and

other jurisdictions. In Canada, leading authorities and advocates in the women's health field have been calling for this measure for over a decade, but to no avail.

There is a tendency among some to trivialize this, rather than seeing it as health protection issue. As we all know, this is a health issue and a cultural issue.

Implants have become increasingly popular and at some level have gained really wide, bizarre acceptance, i.e., becoming prizes in radio contests. Some parents are giving their daughters breast

implants for graduation. The whole body ideal for young girls these days is making more and more young women proceed with acceptance of this kind of procedure without really knowing or questioning

the possible health risks. The problem is those health risks are very sketchy. Despite repeated problems associated with implants and the body of research suggesting possible links between implants

and different health problems, very serious health problems, there is still no adequate infrastructure to comprehensively monitor for, and respond to, adverse reactions to implants.

I must tell you that this is a very serious issue that is not being addressed, because now we have an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 women in Canada who have had

this surgery: 20% of those were for reconstruction after mastectomy while the remaining 80% were for cosmetic augmentation. As I said, the latter seems to be rising, particularly among younger

women. Some would say "Buyer beware" should apply when it comes to people who opt for this as an elective procedure, but how can women possibly be clear on that when there is a lack of information

about the true nature of the risks involved? Information presupposes viable informed consent, and that is not what is happening. A growing body of research raises questions that need to be

answered: What is the exact nature of the relationship between implants and the onset of serious health problems? What is the exact rate of rupture and removal? Are some women more likely than

others to experience problems?

A registry like this could facilitate the long-term independent research needed to answer these question so women can make informed decisions about the

procedure. Last week, I held a press conference about this issue where experts underscored how a government registry could help collect the data needed to get such answers.

Anne Rochon Ford, co-ordinator of Women and Health Protection, said last Friday that there is no public record of even the number of surgeries performed to

insert breast implants, let alone a record of the health outcomes: "Women are participating in a huge experiment with a device for which we do not have long-term safety data. A registry for breast

implants in Ontario would go a long way to improve our understanding of heath outcomes of these devices for women."

It is very timely that this is coming before us today, because the silicone implant debate has been raised again. As you know, silicone implants had been

withdrawn from the market some years ago because of safety concerns, and now there is a lot of pressure by the manufacturers to bring them back on the market, and Health Canada and the federal

government are considering doing just that.

We know that pre-market reviews of implants are inadequate measures of safety. That is mostly what is happening now in terms of research. These reviews depend

upon on studying reactions in a small group for a limited period of time. Adverse reactions have been shown to surface sometime after implant, six to 10 years later. This is reflected in the

research that we have. Some studies dating from 1990 find that silicone gel implants do not increase women's risk for autoimmune disorders and possible disease, while most recent studies involving

study groups who had implants for a longer period of time suggest an increased risk.

At recent FDA hearings considering manufacturers' requests to reintroduce the silicone breast implants, the American College of Women's Health Physicians

contested approving their return because adequate long-term research has not been done to figure out the relationship between silicone implants and subsequent health problems experienced by

recipients.

There are some who might say, and I tend to agree in some ways, that this should be done as a national registry. There has been some attempt to get that done

over the years by my NDP colleagues in Ottawa; in fact, Audrey McLaughlin was able to get all-party support some years ago to move forward. But I must say that we can't wait. Ontario has been a

trailblazer in so many areas and could be again. We could send a signal today that we are ready and willing, here in Ontario, to get the whole process started, that we can be a trailblazer in this

area. If there are 100,000 to 200,000 women involved across Canada, given the size and population of our Ontario, you can imagine that a large proportion of those women live in our province and are

not being protected. Their health is not being protected, they are not getting the information beforehand, and if problems arise, as they often do, there is no way for a quick response to inform

the women of the problems.

A registry would address in two ways the vacuum that now exists: It would serve as an emergency quick-response system to contact women whose implants may pose a

health risk. Physicians would submit the information about the type of implant used and contact information about patients to the registrar, who would be appointed by the minister, in accordance

with the Personal Health Information Protection Act, which already exists and protects patients who allow their personal data, without identifying information, to be used for research purposes.

I believe that this is a very important bill to pass today. I know that there may be some concerns expressed about privacy, and I want to make it absolutely

clear that if you talk to the people who have had, and are living with, serious health risks because of their not being given adequate information, not knowing the risks associated with implants,

had they known that these serious health impacts would happen to them, and if you speak to some of the implant survivors who have had to have them removed, who will suffer serious health impacts

for the rest of their lives, I believe they will tell you loudly and clearly -- they did recently in the press conference I had here -- that they very, very much want this bill passed today so it

can move forward and Ontario can be first in Canada to set up a such registry.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Ms. Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): I am pleased to rise to speak to this bill. Just before I get started on that, I want to make reference

to the fact that the member who is introducing this bill is going to be leaving us soon to run federally. I have been working alongside her for about a year and a half now and have admired her work

very much, especially in committee. She is a strong parliamentarian, and I wish her much success.

This is just an example of the kind of thorough and considerate work she has done. It is very thoughtful. This is, as she has pointed out, an issue that can be

trivialized, and has been, but it's a serious issue, not just from health standpoint, but, as she has already pointed out, from a cultural standpoint. I just want to talk a little bit about the

culture -- the culture of the breast, if you will -- because it's quite potent on a number of fronts.

First of all, we'll just deal with the fashion industry. You look at fashion magazines and you have these emaciated-looking models showing off clothes, and this

is seen as a model. This is what you're supposed to strive for, and on top of that, you should have a fairly hefty chest. So you have to get this surgery in order to have it. I find it shocking

that parents are giving this surgery to their children as a gift. There's a madness in that, the madness of our society, of our culture, that that sort of thing happens, because of the health

implications, but also the self-esteem issue. We really have a problem around the way we view ourselves and our bodies, and this is a really tragic example of it.

I was looking one day at our daily newspapers, one of the large ones, and above the fold there was a picture of Britney Spears. She was in a bathing suit, a

bikini, and she looked pretty great to me. She looked good. Underneath it was, "Mom-to-be Should Eat Fewer French Fries." I could not believe it. Here was a young woman who looked to be in the

absolute perfect peak of health, expectant -- so she had a tiny belly where the baby was -- and they were suggesting that she should not be eating so many French fries. This is in a national

newspaper, front page, above the fold. That's the kind of message going out to people. It's unhealthy, I say it's a madness, and this is part of it.

So we have women who are going out there and getting surgeries. It's a money-making industry, and I think we do need some very serious controls around it. "Buyer

beware" is not enough. This is something where you're doing a surgery. Something is going into somebody's body and it's a health issue.

The other thing about it is that it's not just a fashion issue. We get to the issue of breast cancer and when women have to lose a breast to breast cancer. This

is a really traumatic event for women, psychologically as well as physically, because the breast is a potent icon, not just from a fashion sense but from a life-giving sense, from the feminine

sense. It is what gives life, period. That's how most of us started on this planet. No matter what species you are, it is the life-giving icon. To lose that is really very traumatic for women. The

breast implant offers something positive to women who have to undergo reconstructive surgery after a mastectomy, and it can restore some self-esteem, which is a positive thing. But even more

important, then, is that we have some serious controls around that, especially because it is a money-making industry.

I'm going to digress just for a moment on the breast cancer issue, because my sister just went through this recently. What you have to go through with breast

cancer is a range, and she's doing very well, thankfully. But the northern shore of Lake Ontario is one of the hot spots in the world for breast cancer. We have a high incidence of that in Ontario.

I think it's second only to the San Francisco Bay area. Most people don't know that. The northern shore of Lake Ontario is second only to San Francisco Bay for the highest incidence of breast

cancer in the world. They're not sure why that is. We can stand here and guess, but that's probably not a good idea. She lived in that area and contracted breast cancer, and went through all that

you have to go through when you are told you have cancer, and then to have to recover from that in all the areas.

On the one hand, the implants can provide a tremendous amount of hope and psychological support. On the other hand, the concept of them is a negative; I think

it's a negative in our society and in our world.

Some of the information has already been presented by Ms. Churley, but I just wanted to go over the current status so that people understand. At the moment, most

breast implants are performed in private health clinics, and they are not captured in the ministry administrative databases. So right now, a lot of data is lacking in terms of the exact number of

implants being performed in Ontario and Canada and on the long-term health effects of the breast implantation. That's something that, given the experience with the silicone gel implants, is really

needed at this point.

The breast implant registry could help protect the health of women by monitoring the implantation and allowing notification of implant recipients in case of any

safety concerns. It would also enable the scientific research needed to make evidence-based safety decisions.

Health Canada is currently reviewing the reintroduction of silicone gel implants. As mentioned, they were removed in 1992. The fact that it's being reviewed now

that they're coming back really does speak to the fact that there has to be some serious control put around this issue.

If we're going to move forward at all as a society one day, it would be very nice to think that we didn't have to go to such tragic or extreme lengths to change

our bodies one way or another just to satisfy some made-up ideal.

I think it's an important thing that the member has brought forward today and that it should be taken quite seriously. I applaud her for bringing it forward.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm pleased to be able to rise today. I'm going to be speaking to a couple of bills this morning, Bill 192

and Bill 191 as well.

First of all, on Bill 192, the Breast Implant Registry Act, I want to speak for a few moments on the member from Toronto-Danforth. I echo the comments made by

the member from Stoney Creek on her moving on to federal politics. I will say to Marilyn Churley that although we don't have the same ideals in our provincial party, the Progressive Conservative

Party, I have really enjoyed working in the House with all members of the House but particularly members of the New Democratic Party in opposition.

In some cases, when you start out in politics, you tend to have straightforward thinking. What really changes that, in a lot of cases -- I do a lot of

appointments with constituents in my office, so you end up with much more of a social conscience as you listen to their stories and try to think how we can resolve some of the problems. I looked

for some of those yesterday in the budget, some of the resolutions I was expecting.

The loss of Ms. Churley will be the federal party's gain. I talked just a week ago to Ms. Churley's opponent in the last provincial election, a fellow by the

name of George Sardelis, who says he will never, ever again run in that riding for our party. George is actually currently working for Helena Guergis, the MP for Simcoe-Grey. He is a very nice

person. He ran in Toronto-Danforth in the last provincial election and didn't do very well against Ms. Churley, so I know she is very well respected. Her loss from this House will be somewhat

similar to when Frances Lankin left. I thought that was a great loss as well.

It's disappointing when we as politicians lose members, in any political party. I'm sorry to see Jim Flaherty and John Baird leave as well. Obviously, they want

to move on to some other challenges in their lives. I think we have to re-evaluate some of the things we do in this House and maybe the way we're compensated so we don't lose people quite as easily

as we have. We're losing some excellent members in this particular round. I wanted to put that on the record.

The registry: Ms. Churley's office passed around a lot of background on this legislation. I never dreamt on God's green earth that I'd be talking about a breast

implant registry, but this is an interesting topic. I had no idea of the kind of numbers they're talking about.

Just as recently as this week, May 9, there was an

article by Heather Sokoloff in the National Post, which Ms. Churley's office sent around. I want to quote part

of it: "With anywhere from 100,000 to 200,000 women in Canada having undergone implant surgery, about 20% following a mastectomy and the remaining 80% for cosmetic augmentation, Ms. Tweed felt

women were entitled to answers."

I had no idea. I think it's important to note that there's such a wide variety in the numbers. There are so many areas of this particular issue that are unknown.

I only got a copy of the bill in the last little while, but the question I want to ask Ms. Churley and the members of this House zeroes in on two areas: confidentiality and what is actually

voluntary.

My understanding, reading the National Post

article and part of the bill, is that we are talking about an issue that would be voluntary for women who wanted to

provide that information to a certain registry. I'll ask Ms. Churley, and maybe Mr. Prue or Ms. Churley can address that in some of their statements. I'm talking about confidentiality and just who

would have access to this registry. I wouldn't want to think it was something that everyone could tap into somehow. I'd want to make sure it was only physicians or people in research, that type of

thing. Second, just what is voluntary? I'm certain that many, many women who have gone through this process would want it to always be confidential.

However, that being said, it's safe to say, particularly in the area of the 20% following a mastectomy, that it's really important that we treat it as a health

and safety issue and an issue involving our health system.

Breast cancer research and the attention that is paid to that across our province and across our country is overwhelming, and I can't think of anything more

traumatic to affect a female's life than to lose a breast due to a mastectomy for breast cancer.

In our area, and I think across the province, the pink ribbon symbolizes breast cancer awareness and research. My wife and daughter are involved in a golf

tournament in a couple of weeks to raise funds for breast cancer research. It's a females-only golf tournament that's going to be up in Hawk Ridge on June 6. I think it will be well attended and,

hopefully, it will raise quite a bit of money locally for that.

I can also tell you that we have a serious problem in Simcoe county with awareness of breast cancer and of cancer in general. It involves our ongoing lobbying

for a Cancer Care Ontario unit to be built at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie. Just a week ago, a bunch of the radio stations in the Barrie area got together. They had a fundraising telethon.

A lot of politicians, doctors, nurses and people who have a serious concern about whether or not we should have that Cancer Care Ontario unit in Barrie got together and raised a lot of money just

to bring awareness of that. I was part of that. I enjoyed being with the radio stations and discussing this and trying to bring awareness, because cancer is a disease that seems to be more

prevalent now than ever before. We seem to be hearing of more cases of it, and of course breast cancer is one of the leading areas of that. We need to make sure that in Simcoe county, in central

Ontario, we have access to that Cancer Care Ontario unit, and not five or 10 years from now.

The folks up at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie, as we speak today, are drawing up plans. They're prepared to go; they're prepared to start construction.

We just need the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care to support this endeavour. Simcoe county is ready for it. The hospital has been out talking to the city of Barrie, talking to the county of

Simcoe, talking to all the stakeholders. They're looking for a massive campaign. It will help many women who may or may not have problems with breast cancer.

I want to acknowledge for a second that we had a very difficult time in our caucus last year when Mrs. Munro, the person who sits right beside me, the member

from York North, came across breast cancer. She had a very difficult time with chemotherapy and radiation and all those sorts of things. She fought hard and she won, and we're so pleased that

happened. I know it was a very traumatic experience not only for Mrs. Munro but for all our caucus members and probably all the members of this House. We can play our political games here, but when

someone's health is at risk, everyone is there trying to back them up.

As I continue, you do get a bit of a social conscience as an MPP. You come into this area not knowing all the different issues when you become a brand new member

of Parliament, and you learn very quickly. I've listened to the New Democratic member from Nickel Belt, who is relentless in her pursuit of help for autistic children. A week ago, a grandfather

came in to see me in my office in Orillia. He has autistic grandsons. They're three years old. He can't get them into any IBI treatment. At one time, this gentleman had his house paid for. Now he

is mortgaging his future, and this man is already in his late 60s, to provide, on his own, IBI treatment for three-year-olds. They can't get into the program. What do we say to someone like that?

What do we say?

I looked for it in the budget yesterday. I looked for the word "autism" to be used once. I looked in the backgrounder. I looked in Mr. Sorbara's speech:

"Investing in People, Strengthening our Economy." I thought the word "autism" would have been used once. It wasn't. I actually encouraged the grandfather last week to look forward to the budget,

because something must be coming. With all this new federal money and the health premium tax we have today, surely there'd be something for autistic children. It wasn't there, nothing was there, so

now I've got to call the guy on the weekend and try to find out how we can possibly help him. This guy will go bankrupt, as a person in his late 60s, trying to help his son. His son has no

financial resources, so the grandfather is mortgaging his house to try his best to help his autistic grandsons. That's a sad story, and it's one of the reasons -- as I said earlier, you tend to

think you're a hard-line Conservative or a hard-line Liberal or whatever it is, but everybody who has a social conscience has to be responsible and think about all the unfortunate people in our

lives.

I'm going to wrap it up right there. I just want to acknowledge the fact that I personally will support this registry. As long as there is confidentiality and it

is voluntary, I can't see how this could possibly hurt any women in our country, and I think it would show the leadership role that Ms. Churley and the province of Ontario are taking.

I want to leave a couple of minutes for my colleague from Haliburton-Victoria-Brock. She'd like to wrap up and make a few comments as well.

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): It is a privilege and an honour to stand today to comment on the member from Toronto-Danforth's bill.

The other day in the House, I had a member's statement, and -- following my discovery, and at first my dismay, that my colleague was going to leave me -- I gave

my whole statement about her. As a recent newspaper so aptly put it -- I'd just like to read this line from Canada.com, because it's really good about this registry. It says, "But the idea of a

registry got a new shot of life last week when Marilyn Churley, a flamboyant NDP member of Ontario Legislature, proposed the creation of a registry in a private member's bill endorsed by

high-profile women's health researchers and activists across the country."

It's the word "flamboyant" that I want to talk about, because I think that is exactly the best adjective I have ever seen to describe Ms. Churley. I have had the

pleasure of working with her in this House for four years, but also the pleasure of working with her for many years when I was mayor of East York. As you are well aware, a large portion of

Toronto-Danforth is in East York, and we would often work collaboratively together.

Interjection.

Mr. Prue: Yes, and from time to time we would even celebrate great events.

I'm going to miss her very much here, but I want to tell you, the people of Beaches-East York, those I have contacted in the days since she announced she will be

running federally in what, for all intents and purposes, is my provincial riding -- the federal riding has shifted very slightly with the new boundaries, but for all intents and purposes, it is 95%

the same -- are overjoyed at the prospect of having a federal representative who is flamboyant, who is so hard-working, who has, as was described, a social conscience. As much as we may miss her

here, I know that the people in my riding are so excited about having such a champion on the federal level.

Having said that, just a few words, because I believe my colleague from Hamilton East also wants to speak to this.

When we look at what necessitates this bill, primarily it is driven by cosmetic surgery. We would all acknowledge and appreciate the necessity or the desire of

women who have had mastectomies to have reconstructive surgery, and we can understand that with any surgery comes risk. But most of the people who put themselves at risk are doing so not for

reconstructive reasons but simply for cosmetic reasons.

In this day and age, I have to tell you, as a feminist -- I consider myself a feminist, because you do not have to be feminine to be a feminist. To be a feminist

is to believe that women have equality, to believe that women have a place, to believe that women's views matter. Being a feminist, I am surprised that the number of cosmetic surgeries being done

today is increasing exponentially. It wasn't all that many years ago, reading authors like Germaine Greer and others, that I really thought that women had overthrown and gone beyond some of this

need that, historically, had been pressed upon them. But that appears not to be case.

It is not surprising, I guess, when you look at the long history of how women have been forced to beautify themselves, often against their will, and what happens

to women even today to meet this feminine ideal. Being a bit of historian, I look back in history. In the Middle Ages and through the Renaissance, women were bled. Their veins were opened and they

were bled so they would have pale complexions. It was believed that by siphoning off a litre or two of blood in advance of some kind of party or event, the woman would look pale and wan. That was

something that was desired, so women allowed themselves to be bled.

We can look at some of the fashions where women had to wear bodices that were pulled with tight strings to the point that suffocation often resulted. They did

that in order to have what appeared to be tiny little wasp-like waists. We can look to the Chinese culture where they bound young girls' feet. They bound them when they were five or six years old

with tight bandages, so that by the time a young girl became a young woman or a woman of mature age, the feet were so tiny that it was almost impossible to walk, because having little tiny feet was

considered a thing of beauty. We also look at what constitutes beauty in other times and, frankly, women have been forced to sort of try to go along with that and to do things to their bodies that

are really quite unnatural. This is just an extension of all that.

We support the idea of the registry. We think that it is going to do two very good things: One is there is a quick-response contact so that women will be able to

learn very fast if something has gone wrong with a product or a procedure. The second one is there will be an opportunity to study whether or not this is safe. I would suggest it is not safe,

because we know some of the problems that have surfaced already. We know from research that is extant at this time that women with implants are four times more likely to be hospitalized than woman

without implants. We know that they can rupture, they can deflate, and they can leak. We know that complication like pain and numbness and scar tissue proliferate and often result in having to have

more and more surgeries to get rid of it. We know such diseases as fibromyalgia and thyroid disorders result.

But I think the strongest thing I can do -- and I'd like to spend a minute or so doing that -- is to quote Joyce Attis. She is here today, and she is a very

brave woman. She went on the air, and I don't know whether it was live or taped, but she went on television and she told her story, and I have it here. It's going to take about a minute to read,

but I think it is poignant and says why this is necessary. I quote it in its entirety:

"I had a silicone gel breast implant placed in my right breast because it had not developed. I had a condition known as Poland's syndrome. I was 21 years old and

a university student. From the age of 13, I wore an external prosthesis. I just wanted to wear clothes properly and not have to worry about the external prosthesis slipping around or out of my bra.

I now wear an external prosthesis again. Believe me, if I had known how my health and life would be so negatively impacted by that one implant, I would never have had it placed in my body.

"For the first five years, I was very happy and healthy. Soon after, I had a very hard misshaped right breast that I refer to as a cement ball. Having only one

silicone gel breast implant and not knowing anyone else with breast implants, I had nothing with which to compare my right breast. Each physician I asked about it told me not to worry, that

everything was okay. But it wasn't. That breast hurt. I had constant pain and it was very sensitive to touch -- and still is.

"My good health began to fade and I was told I had developed some type of connective tissue disease. My rheumatologist, at that time, also said I had symptoms

of lupus and rheumatoid arthritis. I was fatigued most of the time.

"About seven years after the implant was put in, I developed horrible ribcage and spinal pain that sent me on a whirlwind of visits for four years to many

different physicians. I have seen almost every `ologist' there is.

"I was run through batteries of tests, to ascertain if the problems were psychosomatic or systemic. An orthopedic surgeon deduced from tests that the problem

was indeed systemic and then fused five levels of my thoracic spine (1982). The thoracic spine is a part of the spine that is rarely fused. I now have metal rods and wires on both sides of and

around my spine. The metal and the fusion have of course cause caused other health complications.

"I dealt with many other health issues and didn't make a connection to that one silicone gel breast implant until 1991 when again I spoke with my then

rheumatologist who agreed with me that I should have the implant removed.

"Imagine how many health care dollars would not have been spent had Ontario had a breast implant registry. It is a tremendous burden to OHIP and the residents

of Ontario to cover costs finding out what is wrong and how to make one better because of a failed medical device. This is even more difficult when there is a community of physicians who, because

it could be a major part of their livelihood, continue to loudly vocalize that breast implants do not cause problems.

"With a breast implant registry, we will know the truth!

"With a breast implant registry, I could have been notified years earlier about this failed medical device, and I would never have developed the health

complications I now live with daily.

"With a breast implant registry I would have never needed to see so many doctors nor would I have been hospitalized as many times as I was."

That is one woman's story. She is here today. I hope all members will recognize what she has gone through and do whatever is necessary so that it does not

happen to others.

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): I'm very pleased to rise today to speak on Bill 192, the Breast Implant Registry Act. One of the things I

would like to talk about is the actual background that this private member has brought forward. The bill would require the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care to appoint a registrar to establish,

maintain and operate the registry. The bill sets out a framework for the registry; reporting requirements for health care practitioners; requirements for manufacturers, importers and distributors

of breast implants to notify the registry of health risks for users of the implants; obligations for the registry to notify users and health care practitioners of health risks of breast implants;

reporting obligations of researchers that use the information from the registry for research; and offences and penalties for failing to fulfill the bill's reporting requirements. The bill provides

that information contained in the registry that is not personal health information may be disclosed by the registrar, as prescribed by regulation.

I'd just like to take a moment to talk about what we have in Canada right now. Most breast implants are performed in private health clinics and they are

therefore not captured within the ministry administrative databases. Consequently, the data are lacking on the exact number of implants that are actually performed in Ontario and in Canada, and the

long-term health effects of breast implantation.

The registry would go forward a great distance, I believe, to protect the health of women by monitoring the implantation and explantation procedures; allowing

notification to the recipients in case there are some safety concerns that arise from the implants; and enabling the scientific research that's needed for evidence-based safety decisions.

Health Canada is currently reviewing the reintroduction of silicone gel implants. History lesson: They were removed from the Canadian market in 1992 due to

safety concerns. We think about that time and how much easier it would have made it for all the people who were affected if a database had been available at that time. The worry and the stress

about not knowing what is put within your body and how it affects your overall health -- you can only begin to imagine what that would feel like if you were a recipient or an individual who was

affected by that.

So what can we do within our role to make the lives of women in Ontario -- and certainly, I am sure, Ontario leading by example, the rest of the Canadians will

see what we have done here today.

I think about some of the things that we have done in the past as women, which I'm going to talk about for a minute, some of the silly things -- I'm sure they

weren't silly at that time -- we have done for the sake of fashion, and I guess you could say self-image. I'm not sure whether it's self-image or a perceived self-image, a self-image that you would

wish to project.

One of things that I always felt was probably one of most barbaric customs we had was when corsets first came into place. They were made at that time with

steel or iron. At that time, the perfect waist was 16 or 17 inches. Certainly, I can say I'm a long way from that. But at that time, they kept pushing and pushing, and if, by chance, the ribcage

got in the way of what the woman wanted to look like, then the ribs were broken, so that we could continue to bring the perfect waist in at 16 inches.

I know that it's a different case if it's reconstructive surgery or if it's cosmetic. We can't lose sight of that, but in my mind, it's about perceived

self-image and it's about the image we want to present to the public as a whole.

What we can do as legislators is to ensure that when a decision is made to move forward, be it for reconstructive or cosmetic surgery, the women making those

decisions have all the information they need to make the best decision they possibly can, and then do what we can as a government to ensure that that information remains current and the scientific

research and database go forward with their decisions, if there is a change in any of the science-based reconstructive surgery or the devices that were used.

When I stand today, I rise to support Bill 192, with the proviso that I believe that it should go forward on a voluntary basis, which may not be reflective of

what is going forward today. I do say this to the member, that I will support the bill, with the proviso that you know what my concerns are. I feel it should be on a voluntary basis. I do believe,

in the long-run, that we should work toward mandatory reporting, but at this time, I think that it should be voluntary. We can work toward that so that people can move forward and women can feel

comfortable that the database has information that they want to be entered into it. But that is not what is presented. So with that being said, I still will support the bill.

I congratulate the private member for bringing forward something that I'm sure will make a difference in the lives of women who have to face a very difficult

decision when they are going through reconstructive surgery. It must be a very traumatic and very difficult decision to make; for women too, who make the decision based on cosmetic reasons, on

whether or not to go forward with that decision. They can make that decision knowing that the database will protect their interests, knowing the science is there and, as well, if anything moves

forward, that information will able to go forward with them. So my congratulations to the private member and my congratulations on the future of the private member.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): It is a pleasure to rise today and thank the member for Toronto-Danforth for introducing Bill

192, the Breast Implant Registry Act, 2005, and to thank her for all her past work in the Legislature, for bringing attention to such matters and to wish her all best in the future.

There is certainly a need, with an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 women in Canada having implant surgery, 20% due to reconstruction after mastectomy while the

remaining 80% were for cosmetic augmentation. The member from Stoney Creek talked about the imaging in younger women and how breast augmentation is on the rise. There was even a radio station in

Ottawa that recently held a contest where the prize was a breast augmentation, and their lines were deluged. I think, as a society, we have to look at influences on our young people.

I want to make mention of a breast cancer luncheon I was at in Lindsay recently with over 200 women. Sharon Chambers has organized that luncheon for the past

five years. It raises money for development for breast cancer research and all the work that they have done in that field. I think that a registry is certainly long overdue and it would facilitate

some long-term independent research needed to answer the questions and make women more informed on the important decisions they have to make.

In the early days, I think that upholstery fill was used for breast implantation, so we are way beyond those days.

We need to have a tracking system and more information out there for women to make these decisions.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): It's my pleasure to enter into the debate on Bill 192, the Breast Implant Registry Act, brought forward by

my colleague, who has come to be a friend, Marilyn Churley. I'm going to be missing her as she moves on to different parts of her political career. I think this bill really indicates the

effectiveness of this member, not only today but in what she has been able to do in her history here and what I know she'll continue to do as she moves into other areas of her political career.

I made an effort to get here to speak to this issue. I listened to many of the comments before I was in the House and since I got here. There are a couple of

things that I find really ironic. The first piece is how long it has been for women to be able to get the kind of recognition and access to women-centred health care around the world, quite

frankly, but really in our communities and in Canada. When you look at the way the medical profession has, over time, not dealt with women's health issues in a serious way, right up until recent

decades, when in fact you could rarely even obtain a woman physician, then certainly coming to this debate now and talking about having a registry for breast implants shows that we've come a long

way, but not long enough.

I think it's interesting that some of the debate has centred around whether this particular registry should be mandatory or optional. It's ironic that the very

80% of women who choose breast augmentation as a cosmetic choice -- again, I'm not going to judge those women. I have my own perspectives on that as a feminist and as a woman. However, I think it's

interesting that on the one hand we say that we should make this an optional thing because people might be embarrassed, there might be some ostracism, there's a privacy issue -- it's a bit ironic,

though, that all of the trappings of our modern society that lead women into this position where they feel that they have to get breast augmentation to somehow be acceptable or to be more beautiful

or to have a figure that is more reflective of what we see in commercials and in our daily drivel of media representations are the same trappings that would then make them embarrassed to be put on

to a registry. That's a sad situation.

I strongly support this bill. I think it's long past due that this registry be put in place not only in Ontario and in Canada, but worldwide, because

unfortunately the number of women who are choosing to go this route is growing. That's an unfortunate statement on where we've come as a society.

Nonetheless, I still don't believe that the medical profession takes women's health issues seriously. This is one way to make sure that that is forced in this

particular area. I think we have long seen very intrusive medical responses to women's health issues. We have seen medical responses that have not adequately and appropriately given credit to women

who are describing what's happening to their own bodies. Even in mental health, it has been problematic for women to get the attention that they require and that they deserve in an equitable health

system.

The Deputy Speaker: Ms. Churley, you have two minutes to reply.

Ms. Churley: This was a really good debate. I appreciate the comments made by the members from Stoney Creek, Simcoe North, Beaches-East York,

Huron-Bruce, Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, and of course my dear friend and colleague from Hamilton East. I heard some of the concerns expressed, although I was quite gratified -- and Joyce, I'm sure

you were as well -- to hear the support for this bill today.

Some of the concerns around privacy: I must say that I want to underscore that the role the registry would play in research would be in keeping with the rules

already set out by the Personal Health Information Protection Act. The act has sections that would apply to research, and this bill follows that to the letter in terms of confidentiality. People

can sign consent forms, should they choose, to allow their personal information to be attached for research purposes, but that is within the bill.

I want to quote, or at least paraphrase, Joyce, who said that with a breast implant registry, we will save money for the public health care system.

We didn't talk about that a lot today, but of course what we have talked about are the serious health problems and hospitalizations and surgery that follow

frequently, after many years in some cases, and that of course costs our public health care system a lot of money. That's another aspect we should look at here.

I would suggest that we send this bill to committee, and I know that all my colleagues here will pick up on it, should the government proceed with the registry

and have it come back for third reading and a final vote in this House. I want to thank everybody for their tremendous support today.

APPRENTICESHIP AND CERTIFICATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'APPRENTISSAGE ET LA RECONNAISSANCE

PROFESSIONNELLE

Ms. Scott moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 191,

An Act to amend the Apprenticeship and Certification Act, 1998 / Projet de loi 191, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur l'apprentissage et la

reconnaissance professionnelle.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, Ms. Scott, you have up to 10 minutes.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): This bill will begin the process of developing a new apprenticeship for people working in the

fuel industry. Bill 191 creates an industry committee that would be known as the fuel industry technician advisory committee. This industry committee would act as a voice and representative for gas

and oil burner fitters and fuel technicians. These trades are those that require the obtainment of fuel industry certificates, as required by the Technical Standards and Safety Authority in

regulation 215/01 of the Technical Standards and Safety Act, 2000.

The bill addresses concerns raised by average Ontarians about trades in the fuel industry. There is a need for trades in this industry to have a secure

position with our province's apprenticeship training system. The bill also serves as a reminder that our education system needs to constantly respond to gaps in the labour market and to our

province's changing needs. Apprenticeship training and labour market shortages are usually not fiercely discussed items in our public agenda. Unless you know someone who works in the particular

trade, the needs and difficulties experienced are relatively invisible to most people, and even to those of us who stand as elected representatives.

Before I deal with the specifics of the bill, I will spend some time talking about the nature and worth of apprenticeship training. Originally, the Trades

Qualification and Apprenticeship Act guided the development and place of skilled trades in Ontario. The previous government sought to renew Ontario's system of apprenticeship training. In 1998,

they introduced the Apprenticeship and Certification Act. This act instituted different learning styles and planned for gaps in our skilled workforce. The act has done a good job of achieving these

objectives.

In particular, a member of the caucus from Simcoe North, who will speak shortly on this bill, raised the profile of skilled trades and why technology in

education and apprenticeship training is valuable. In his role as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education, Garfield Dunlop conducted a number of stakeholder consultations. He examined

the state of technology education in Ontario and how many more young adults could be attracted to skilled trades. A report based on these consultations was submitted to the minister. It outlined

recommendations for strengthening technology in education and apprenticeship training. It also expressed serious concerns about shortages in skilled workers. It also noted that programming is

needed for students and young adults to access the training required to work in skilled trades.

Four years later, discussions about the skilled trades have not changed that much. Similar concerns are still out there. We need to move forward and support

the development of skilled trades and apprenticeship training. There is currently no apprenticeship training in place for people who work or who are planning to work as field technicians. This is

quite surprising.

The use of natural gas is growing. The number of jobs in this sector is growing. Fully 200 million homes, businesses and industries in Ontario use natural gas

appliances on a daily basis. In Ontario alone, 4,000 employers hire a variety of tradespeople to heat, vent, cool, freeze and conduct and make sure that air does not escape from our homes and

businesses.

Fuel technicians do not perform one standard job or service. They work in a variety of areas. Fuel technicians work with natural gas and oil-fuelled furnaces.

They install them, repair them and remove them. They also work with air conditioners and ventilation systems. They enter our homes, schools and businesses and provide important services to all of

us. The fuel technician trade straddles a number of occupations. These people also work as sheet metal fitters, plumbers and refrigeration mechanics.

Trades in the fuel industry do not exist in a vacuum. They overlap with a number of different sectors. There is a common feature between all of these trades

and jobs: Most people working in any of these trades or jobs are required to meet particular training and certification standards as specified by the delegated administrative authority, the

Technical Standards and Safety Authority.

People who work in the fuel industry are governed by strict and constantly beefed-up safety standards. The occurrence of tragic fuel explosions in Ontario has

resulted in rigorous safety standards. In 2002, 4,691 fuel-related accidents were reported in Ontario; 91% of these accidents involved natural gas pipelines. Investigations showed that natural gas

pipeline accidents were caused by a failure to follow safety guidelines when working near buried natural gas pipelines and to properly locate buried natural gas pipelines before conducting

excavation work.

The materials that fuel technicians work with require them to be highly trained individuals. People who work in the fuel industry are required to complete

particular training and to hold particular certifications in order to work. Working as a fuel technician is a multi-step certification process. Obtainment of certification, along with hands-on

training with an expert in the field, is required to proceed to higher levels of certification.

Small business owners in my riding of Haliburton-Victoria-Brock who work with heating and cooling systems brought this to my attention. Speaking with them, I

learned that getting the required training certification to work as a fuel technician is a challenge. In some cases, accessing training is in fact an impossibility. People working in the field

often have to quit their jobs to return to school to upgrade their certifications or to complete base training requirements. In some cases, where people do not have to quit their jobs, there are

still many challenges. How does someone supporting a family and reliant on a steady income return to school without financial assistance? How does someone even afford tuition to attend?

ready to meet the demands of our citizens and how we as a government support high public safety standards.

The government has put forward an agenda that is committed to ensuring that Ontario has a stable and well-trained skilled workforce. Their plan is to "build an

economy based on high skills and high standards" by "strengthening our greatest competitive advantage: the skills and expertise of Ontario's workers." This government has said that they are working

toward reducing a reported shortage in 41% of Ontario's skilled trades over the next five years. This bill complements these initiatives. It is a bill that I hope will be applauded by all members

of the Legislature.

The bill is also about meeting the future needs of our workforce. The demand for skilled workers in the fuel industry is very real. Apprenticeship training

would help meet this need. The demand for natural gas in Ontario and throughout Canada is steadily increasing. We need to ensure that there is a steady stream of well-trained and qualified

individuals ready to work in this area.

The Propane Gas Association of Canada commented, "The issue of a shortage in trained and skilled technicians in the gas field for both natural gas and propane

is not unique to one province or even one region in Canada. It is widespread and will become more acute in a short period of time." We need to respond to this reality.

Industry representatives in the heating, ventilation and air conditioning industry are supportive of apprenticeship training. They have stated that some sort

of apprenticeship training would give a much-needed face to the trade. Apprenticeship training would ensure that recruitment into the industry is stable. Eighty-two per cent of the refrigeration

and air conditioning contractors association members support apprenticeship training.

Colleges in Ontario are supportive of working toward a new apprenticeship program. Directors of various apprenticeship departments in Ontario colleges have

emphasized that fuel technician training is a natural fit with the apprenticeship model. In my riding, Fleming College, a training provider for fuel technician courses, has told me this trade needs

to be supported by apprenticeship training. More courses need to be offered to meet the number of people wanting to enrol. Training facilities need to be upgraded to ensure that safety standards

are met.

Contractors, like Jerry Walker of Walker's Heating and Cooling Systems from Haliburton, support this bill and first introduced me to the need. Industry

stakeholders representing the natural gas, liquid propane, fuel oil and heating ventilation and air conditioning sectors support this bill. The Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and

Technology of Ontario supports this bill. Individual workers, educators and industry representatives want to see this initiative moved forward.

This bill is about how our education system provides training for skilled workers. It is also about preparing for future demands in our workforce. It is about

public safety and how we help ensure that safety standards are put into practice.

Bill 191 simply requires that workers, educators and industry be brought to the table to develop a new apprenticeship program. Interest is out there. The

heating, refrigeration and air conditioning association is ready to move this initiative forward. The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada is eager to move this forward. The

Ontario Propane Association wants to move ahead with this process and be part of it. The Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology wants to move forward and have a seat at the table.

Scott Andison, president of the Canadian Oil Heat Association, is sitting in the gallery today and supports developing a new apprenticeship program. Scott, thank you for being here with us

today.

Let's provide them with the tools to do this. We need to increase the number of fully trained and qualified fuel technicians in Ontario and develop a new

apprenticeship program under the umbrella of the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): It's indeed a pleasure for me this morning to speak on Bill 191,

An Act to amend the Apprenticeship and

Certification Act, 1998. I must say it is our intention -- my intention -- to support this private member's bill.

At the outset, I want to state the high regard I have for the member from Haliburton-Victoria-Brock. I had the pleasure, during my time on council in

Peterborough, to get to know her father, the late Bill Scott, who very ably represented that riding federally from 1965 to 1993. He was a very distinguished parliamentarian. From time to time our

paths crossed, and I always enjoyed my discussions with Mr. Scott about the workings of the federal Parliament.

We feel this is a very important private member's bill. I had the opportunity to chat with the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, the Honourable

Mary Anne Chambers, who, I might add, showed enormous leadership, working with the Premier and the finance minister to put some $6.2 billion of new money into colleges, training and universities

over the next five years. As my good friend the president of Trent University in Peterborough said to me after the budget presentation yesterday, it's the first significant investment in

post-secondary education Ontario in the last 24 years. Indeed, that's being well received, from Cochrane to Kenora, from Windsor to Peterborough to Stratford and all across the province. But I

don't want to digress too far, Speaker. I'll get back to what we're talking about here this morning.

We've been working in the ministry with the Technical Standards and Safety Authority in the province of Ontario. We've asked that particular group to help us

come up with solutions for training in the fuel industry. The trades and fuel industry standards are set by the TSSA, and training is provided through colleges and private deliveries for the

standards in the province. Currently, colleges offering the program include Algonquin, Humber, Mohawk, George Brown and Cambrian. There are also several private deliverers in this area, including

Direct Energy. There is a wide range of classroom-delivered training programs in the fuel sector, and typical durations last from eight to 24 weeks. Durations for the on-the-job training portion

range from two to four years and include between 4,000 and 8,000 hours of training.

Support from the industry for this apprenticeship program has existed but has been somewhat inconsistent. Some in industry believe an Ontario apprenticeship

program would be redundant, while others think it certainly is the way to go, and I appreciate the member's initiative this morning.

I want to add that the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities has been working with the TSSA over the last number of years to develop an

apprenticeship program in the fuel industry. This has been ongoing and we're working diligently in this area because we certainly recognize the need for this particular skill.

One of the things we're trying to emphasize in Ontario today is that for those individuals who are entering an apprenticeship training program, these are

really gold-collar occupations because the potential to earn in these areas and to explore new areas is unlimited. We have witnessed in the last number of years that the last great immigration flow

to Ontario, which came principally from Europe in 1959-60, is now retiring. Indeed, a number of economists have indicated that one of the potential difficulties with the Ontario economy going

forward is a shortage of skilled tradespeople. That's why we like to refer to them now as gold-collar occupations: a chance for young people, people who perhaps have been out of school for a while

or those individuals who have gone on to community college, an opportunity to have the potential -- it's unlimited with the kinds of skills we have today.

Just recently, I talked to an individual in Toronto who is very involved in the rehabilitation of brownfield sites who indicated to me that you can't find good

drywallers. I know there's a shortage of toolmakers and machinists. The member from Haliburton-Victoria-Brock has also identified an area within the fuel industry where there's a need to develop an

apprenticeship training program.

We on our side find this a very exciting opportunity. Indeed, as the parliamentary assistant to the minister, we look forward to supporting this

initiative.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm pleased to be able to rise today to speak for a few moments on Bill 191, the Apprenticeship and

Certification Amendment Act, 2005, from my colleague Ms. Scott, the member from Haliburton-Victoria-Brock. This bill is very timely. I can tell you as someone who spent 25 years in the skilled

trades area -- I'll tell you a little bit about some of these particular licences in a few moments -- it's an area the province should pay more attention to.

There's no question in my mind that this bill is more about public safety than it is actually about certification. I'll give you a little bit of background.

When I got out of college, the first technician's licence I got was an oil burner licence. All I really had to do was pass an exam. I wrote the exam. There was no background other than I worked in

our family business. I was able to take that licence and go out and immediately start work on oil burners. I got my natural gas licence when I was in my apprenticeship for plumbing. I did that just

on the side because I didn't have a lot of trouble with the plumbing apprenticeship courses, and at Humber College I was allowed to write the gasfitter 2 licence. I got that with no background

whatsoever, and I was able to go out and work on equipment.

This is the problem: Even 20 years ago, the equipment was much more simplified. We never had near the efficiencies in the equipment, and we didn't have the

electronic equipment on furnaces and air conditioners etc. that we have today. There are all kinds of safety features. I don't think there's a furnace made today with a pilot light on it.

Everything is electronic ignition. When a person is out repairing these furnaces in the middle of the night or on a weekend, they have to be able to follow a very complicated process to work on the

equipment.

There are the three fuels: oil, natural gas and propane. The equipment that we supply today that is manufactured not only here in Ontario but in the United

States, as well as in Europe, comes into Canada and gets CSA approval and ULC approval, in most cases, is very technical, and you need a lot of experience to work on not only the equipment that

comes in but all the different models. For that reason, we need to address this in a more responsible manner as government, because we need to know that when you're dealing with propane, natural

gas or oil, these are fuels that can actually cause a fire. They can cause your fire department to be called in the middle of the night, your smoke detectors to go off, or an explosion. I have no

problem at all making sure that we have a fuel oil technician's licence or some kind of an apprenticeship program based on those three fuels. I think it's very important that we do that.

There's one other thing that would occur with that. It would allow this new apprenticeship to actually fall into line for the apprenticeship tax credit, for

which I gave credit to the government before. I'm a real believer in the apprenticeship tax credit. I've said that a number of times in this House. I believe it could and should be expanded. Even

if you don't call this an "apprenticeship," it should be expanded into this particular area because we need to get young men and women involved in this trade.

It's not an easy trade. When people wake up in the middle of the night in rural Ontario or even in large urban areas and they have no heat and there's no

supplementary type of heat in the house, they need to know that they can call someone who can come out on an emergency basis, and when they come out on an emergency basis, they need a truckload of

equipment and parts to fix all these different models of furnaces and units we use to keep our homes and buildings warm.

So I think it's really important that more attention be paid to this particular area. I think, even today, the folks in this area are very well paid because

they're in short supply. Two of my constituents, and good friends of mine, Calvin Bell and his wife, Patty, have an oil burner service up in Orillia. He was in to see me a week ago saying, "What am

I going to do for help?" He started teaching the oil burner class at Georgian College, trying to get people who would take the course and become licensed. I told him about Laurie Scott's bill. I

said, "This is what I think should happen. I think it should be a full apprenticeship." Surely with the technical knowledge that's required in this particular area, not only your skills in working

with oil, natural gas and propane but working with electronics -- it's unbelievable. Most people wouldn't understand just how many parts are safety features on this equipment that is being

installed today. It's not something where you can go out like in the old days and change a gas valve and the furnace starts up again. There are a number of parts and safety features that have to be

checked out. I think it's important that the government and the ministry take a responsible role in making sure that this type of certification or apprenticeship takes place.

I commend Ms. Scott for doing this. I think she's showing real leadership in this area. Obviously she's been talking to some constituents in her riding who

have probably brought this to the forefront because they've got concerns. In a large rural riding like Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, you're going to find literally thousands of homes heated by oil,

propane or natural gas. They're spread out over hundreds and hundreds of miles, and we need to know that in all of these communities, especially in a climate like Ontario's, we have the expertise

available across the province to actually have those folks available to go out and repair our furnaces and our air conditioners etc. when they break down. There is no question that there is a

shortage today, and I think it's because we don't have the credentials of an apprenticeship behind their name. It's a step in the positive direction. This is a private member's bill that should

pass. There are a number of them in this House, and I've said over and over again that in a lot of cases the best legislation we have in Parliament comes from private members' hour. This is one of

the bills that I think should be supported by the minister, should be supported by all the stakeholders in the fuel oil industry, and as we move forward, it could help create jobs and it would

expand a very valuable service in Ontario. So I applaud her.

I also wanted to pay recognition today to Scott Andison, who is here and used to work at one point with Ms. Janet Ecker when I did the study on apprenticeship

training, vocational and technical training in Ontario. It was Scott that helped me out a lot with it. It was nice to see him move on to another field, and I'm glad he's here today to support this

piece of legislation, because I think it's important that we carry on with it.

Just to sum up, because I'm going to leave a few moments for Mr. Arnott, who wants to speak to this bill, it is important as a safety issue here. Jobs are one

thing, but when we're dealing with the kind of equipment that is heating our homes today, we need to know that the people who are repairing the equipment in the middle of the night and on weekends

-- they have a tremendous amount of money invested in their trucks and parts that are on those trucks -- are properly qualified. Not only that, but when you have the apprenticeship program, it

allows them to take on a partner and train them as they go. That's so important: for a 50- or 55-year-old guy to have a partner with them, to be able to train that person on oil burners, on natural

gas, on propane, and then to have proper schooling, to go seven or eight weeks a year, three separate times, that's important as well.

This is a win-win bill for the whole industry, it's a win-win bill for the citizens of our province and it's a win-win bill for Ms. Scott, who I think deserves

a lot of credit for bringing this bill forward, and I appreciate this opportunity today.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I must admit that in preparing for this debate on Bill 191, I had to acknowledge the fact that this is an

area I don't know very much about. One of my most serious incidents when it came to these kinds of issues was about 15 years ago when I bought my first home. It had been a duplex, and my sister was

going to live in one

section of it and myself and family were going to live in the other.

We moved in and were getting boxes moved around, and different things were happening. In the kitchen we had some things piled up in a corner, going through the

process of unpacking boxes, and these ones were near the end. They were in this corner, and I didn't notice, but there was a pipe sticking up from the floor. I noticed it there, but I didn't think

anything about it. I figured it's a pipe sticking up from the floor, it's an older home and maybe wherever the renovations had been done in the past that pipe just didn't get dealt with

appropriately.

Well, little did I know that it was a live gas pipe that hadn't been capped off. We found out about three months later when everything was moved away and this

area became a place where we would put our shoes, coming in from the back door into the kitchen. I guess someone's boot had hit the valve and the gas started leaking out. I had no idea it was a

live gas pipe, I had no idea this was a problem, and of course, all of a sudden, one evening we started to notice this odour in the kitchen. I thought, "Where is that coming from? We don't have a

gas stove." It was an electric stove. I'm looking around thinking, "It doesn't make sense. It's crazy. The furnace room is downstairs where the furnaces are. I don't understand why there would be

gas in the kitchen." Sure enough, it took me about 20 minutes to discover that this was a live gas pipe, and at that time I was a smoker -- I'm no longer a smoker. My hubby was a smoker; he

unfortunately still is a smoker. It was just by the grace of God that we didn't have a serious, serious problem. When I called the gas company to come and deal with this issue, they were shocked

that it hadn't been addressed, that this live gas pipe had been sitting there in a corner not capped off, Lord knows for how long. I would surmise that the unit I was living in, the building, had

been owned by a landlord who was renting out to tenants for I don't know how long. I would suspect that the previous tenants had no idea there was a live gas line there.

I think that story reflects the need for this bill that was brought forward today by the member from Haliburton-Victoria-Brock. I have to congratulate her

because she provided members with quite an extensive package of information to help us get an understanding of the importance of this bill and what was motivating her to bring it forward. As

someone coming into this debate, not having a lot of background in the area, it wasn't difficult to get up to speed fairly quickly, because she provided this excellent package and an excellent

outline of the current system, the problems with it and how Bill 191 provides a solution by taking a patchwork system of training, a patchwork system of technical certificates, through the safety

system, the safety association, and bringing all of those pieces together for a more systemic approach to this particular area.

When you look at the divergent types of support that the member has been able to obtain for this bill, it shows that not only has she done her homework, but

she's prepared a bill that addresses not only small business and small entrepreneurs within HVAC or within the fuel oil industries, but also the larger players, the individuals, the students, the

unions, and further to that, the support of the colleges. To that end, I did have an opportunity to meet not too long ago with the college in my local area, Mohawk College, the leadership there,

and spent some time talking about the lack of attention the provincial government is giving to the whole field of apprenticeship and how trades need to be more specifically targeted by government.

Apprenticeship programs need to get more support and more recognition as a niche that we need to fill in terms of the educational continuum.

I'm pleased that I had a chance to be here to speak to this bill. I think it is important to recognize that it's not just a matter of taking that patchwork and

coalescing it into a reasonable and recognized apprenticeship program that will benefit all, but it's also a matter of making sure that the pieces that relate to public safety are organized, that

they are much more stringently put in place through a blanket apprenticeship program as opposed to the way things are currently done through the achieving of various licences and certificates. With

a patchwork it is easier to fall through the cracks. As Mr. Dunlop was indicating, that's how mistakes happen. If there are assumptions that people have certain amounts of information or certain

skills or ability or training when they are going to get one certificate or another, and lo and behold, they're faced with a situation where they really don't have what they need in their pocket to

address it, but because they have these other pieces, perhaps they're going to undertake a job or a piece of work that is not really in their field or in their expertise. That is a problem that

will be solved by this particular bill -- not just the bill, of course, but the implementation of a program for apprenticeship training in this particular field.

I have to say that there has been some discussion about the extent to which there is a skilled trade shortage, and I think that there is a bit of a

disagreement in the industry, depending on whom you're talking to, as to whether or not there is a skilled trade shortage or in which areas of skilled trades a shortage may or may not exist. I'm

glad to hear that the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada is supportive of this initiative. Again, it shows the breadth of consultation that was done by the member who

introduced the bill. But I have to say that I've attended some meetings of our local building trades council, the Hamilton-Brantford Building and Construction Trades Council -- in fact, every year

I attend their district executive meetings -- and I have found that there is some concern in the trades as to whether or not a massive shortage of skilled trades actually exists. They would say

that it doesn't. They would say that for the most part there are many, many skilled trades workers out there, and they have some concerns about overstating the shortage issue and perhaps leading to

a glut in their market and a downward pressure on their wages. That would be one of the concerns that was raised with me by the Hamilton-Brantford Building and Construction Trades Council in regard

to whether or not a trade shortage exists.

That aside, the fact that this particular piece of legislation provides an opportunity to ensure that workers or apprentices or people who want to get into the

area of fuel oil, of HVAC systems -- all of that -- have an ability to do that in a recognized and methodical way that gives them the supports and the required body of not only technical

information but safety information, is invaluable. I will be supporting this bill because I think it's definitely the right way to go. I would only caution that it's not just a matter of a shortage

in trades; it's a matter of making sure that the opportunities are available in a way that is seamless but also in a way that emphasizes safety, not only for the public but for workers who get into

these trades and workers who are working alongside each other. I think it's extremely important.

With those comments, I wanted to congratulate the member from Haliburton-Victoria-Brock for bringing this bill forward, for providing such an extensive package

of information for members to be able to get up to speed, and for doing the homework that needed to be done to make sure that not only small business but larger industry representatives, colleges,

unions and people interested in the safety aspects of the industry are all on side. Congratulations to the member on that, and I look forward to the passage of this piece of legislation.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): I'm pleased to also join in debate today. I want to echo the comments of other members of our caucus,

particularly the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, the member from Peterborough, who stated that he and the minister and of course all of our caucus

are in support of this great piece of legislation, this private member's bill that's been brought forward by our colleague Laurie Scott, the member for Haliburton-Victoria-Brock. I would echo what

we have been saying about how we appreciate the fact that you have brought this forward for us to debate today.

I must admit that what goes around comes around. I know that the good member from Haliburton-Victoria-Brock supported my private member's bill, which is now

law, in regard to protecting firefighters, paramedics and police officers. I appreciated her support, and the mere fact that she came to me and asked for my support told me it would be a good bill.

We look forward to supporting it this morning.

The thing I want to talk about is that I had very little understanding of apprenticeships and training when I came here 19 months ago. My background is more

financial. I tell people that I come from a long line of pen pushers. I was never one who was handy; I was never one who understood the great joy that people have in the vocation they have to be in

the trades. The only thing I've learned is this tremendous shortage that we have in skilled trades, as the member from Peterborough was alluding to. So how do we change that? What we have to do --

and I give credit to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities -- is invest in our young people, open up those possibilities, and also continue through in the

whole post-secondary world, which includes training and apprenticeships and colleges and universities.

I want to talk about something called OYAP, the Ontario youth apprenticeship program. It's a remarkable program that I was exposed to, along with Minister

Kennedy, our Minister of Education, when he came to visit Stratford. This is a program that exposes our elementary students from grades 6 through 8 to the trades. It's a mobile program. It's in a

great big kind of U-Haul truck that is moved from site to site, from school to school. It's set up within the school and the kids are able to see, touch and do things that people do in the trades.

Whether it's to solder or to saw, whether it's to do computer-assisted design, all of these things are there, and what we have to do -- and I agree with the member from Peterborough -- is explain

to our young people that there are gold-collar jobs in training and in the apprenticeship program, which is how one becomes a skilled tradesperson in this province.

How do we expose that? To be fair, and speaking as a parent, we've allowed a culture to develop where somehow it's just the university track that we want our

children to be on. But we know that there are great-paying jobs for people, for all types of people. How do we do that? We obviously have to expose children to the trades and we have to let them

know that there's a career for them if it is their vocation, if it is their calling. We can't dismiss that. There are so many great tradespeople, and for hundreds of years, if not for the last

millennia, what has developed in the trades is the whole idea of the master training the apprentice, one on one. That's how these great traditions are passed on from generation to generation.

Somehow, in this country and in this province, I think we've lost some of that focus, and we need to bring that back.

It's not just a matter of money. It's a matter of changing culture, but money is important as well. I'm proud to be part of a government that has raised the

profile but also has raised the financial allocation that we give to training. I know that we were particularly proud, of course, yesterday that the Minister of Finance announced in this House

that, despite all the money that we have earmarked and are moving toward training and apprenticeship, there is an additional $17.5 million that we'll be flowing through to 2007-08. Again, to make

sure that these opportunities are there, our economy depends on skilled tradespeople. It depends on them. We used to have them come in by way of immigration. That isn't happening in the numbers

required to build a strong and prosperous economy.

I am proud to support Bill 191 and my friend from Haliburton-Victoria-Brock. I think our caucus and all caucuses are looking forward to supporting this bill as

it wends its way through the legislative process.

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I'm very pleased to have the opportunity this morning to speak in support of Bill 191,

An Act to amend

the Apprenticeship and Certification Act, 1998, that has been brought forward by the member for Haliburton-Victoria-Brock.

First of all, I want to congratulate and commend the member for this exciting initiative, which is her first private member's ballot item. I think it shows the

thoughtfulness that she brings to her responsibilities as an MPP. She walked into this place in 2003 as one of two new members of our caucus, and that was no small victory because that was a

challenging election for us, as members will recall, in 2003. To have two new members come in to join our fold was very, very exciting for us. She's done an extraordinary job.

She and I have something in common. When I came in here in 1990, I had huge shoes to fill, because I was following behind a member who was widely respected,

and I would say that his constituents thought of him with a great deal of affection. That was Jack Johnson. I had worked for Jack, and I knew that I had huge shoes to fill. She came in here,

following well-respected MPP Chris Hodgson, and of course following in the distinguished service of her father, Bill Scott, who was a member of Parliament for many, many years too. So she's done a

great job and has been a great addition to our caucus. I think this bill she brings forward today, which is intended to establish a committee "known as the fuel industry technician advisory

committee for the group of trades or occupations consisting of the activities for which a person is required to have a certificate under Ontario regulation 215/01 made under the Technical Standards

and Safety Act, 2000, in order to carry on those activities. The committee has functions that are similar to those of committees that the minister is allowed to establish under

section 5 of the

Apprenticeship and Certification Act."

industry. I think she is motivated by reasons of safety, and also following through on ideas that have been brought to her attention by her constituents.

I know this bill is needed and that most members of this House support it. It's interesting. When you look at the way people heat their homes and cool their

homes, there are a number of options. Recently I had the opportunity as the MPP for Waterloo-Wellington to attend the opening of NextEnergy's geothermal facility in Elmira. I'm pleased the

parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Energy is here in the House right now. She was there, present as well. I want to congratulate NextEnergy for their new facility, 25,000 square feet. Their

building is a zero-emissions structure because it generates its heat and cooling from the ground, from geothermal technology. It's a very exciting new business in our area.

I want to take a moment to talk about the provincial budget, because we're meeting today and this is the first session of the Legislature after the provincial

budget. Clearly the government wanted, as much as possible, to present a good-news budget leading up to the federal election. Last year, of course, they brought forward a new health tax, contrary

to their campaign promise, which absolutely hobbled their federal counterparts going into the federal election. That budget last year was responsible for the loss of a significant number of federal

seats for the Liberal Party, and arguably was responsible for the creation of a minority government. This time, I'm sure the Minister of Finance wanted to avoid that particular outcome.

The government wants to be seen to be enthusiastic and excited about post-secondary education, infrastructure and health, but we also saw very bad news for our

rural communities, the Ministry of Agriculture's budget being slashed considerably. I think most farm families in my constituency of Waterloo-Wellington will feel like they've been kicked in the

teeth when they read the papers today about the lack of support for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

It's quite clear that the government has written off rural Ontario, is going to focus on an urban agenda for the next two and a half years, and is not going to

be seen as advocating for rural Ontario at all. Certainly, in two-and-a-half years, assuming we form the government, we'll have a lot of work to do in that respect.

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I'm pleased to make a few comments on the bill presented today by Laurie Scott, the member for

Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, and to congratulate her for bringing it forward.

I noted that she really did her homework on this. In the package she sent, she had letters from various sectors in the industry. I understand that CEP is

supportive, and it is absolutely critical. Some of us perhaps might learn the hard way, from time to time, that when you get a good idea and come forward with it without consulting with all the

stakeholders, it can get you into more trouble than you can imagine. I see that Ms. Scott did that, and that is very important.

I also will read from the letter Ms. Scott sent to members, asking for our support. I found this very interesting: "A newspaper columnist in my riding

commented that Bill 191 contains `a very straightforward practical sort of idea but is not very sensational' and wondered if we, the elected representatives, would find time to consider its

provisions." It goes on to say, "This bill asks us to look at a perennial problem faced by skilled workers who cannot clearly access the training they are required to have, in order to work in

their chosen field, and for us to take adequate steps to correct this problem."

Well, I will say kudos to Ms. Scott for bringing it forward, and to us for debating it quite seriously today, because it may sound boring and mundane to some,

but this is a very critical bill for a couple of reasons. Access to the necessary apprenticeship and training is critical for those who are seeking work in their field. They're often shut out now

because this program isn't there. We hear about that bigger problem in all kinds of professions.

I was recently at a meeting in East York where we talked with people from different ethnic groups who came over here being promised all kinds of opportunities

and with all kinds of skills, from these kinds of skills on through to doctors, lawyers, accountants, whatever. They come over here and are unable to find work in their chosen field. This goes a

small step toward correcting that problem for some of those professionals, and it's really critical.

Originally, I was the minister for what was then known as the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and was responsible for technical standards. During

that time, I was certainly made aware of the safety and consumer concerns when it comes to these kinds of issues.

On the one hand, what this bill does is make sure that those who already have the skills and the training can quickly get into a certified apprenticeship

program and get to work in a field where we need these skilled workers, but also the public can be assured and reassured that all those who are working in these kinds of fields, where there can be

very serious safety concerns involved, actually have the proper safety training and know what they're doing.

I would also, because we're talking a little bit about fuels here, use this opportunity to brag just a tiny bit, because so few people know this -- it's only

vaguely related to the bill. When I was Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, I brought in the toughest standards for underground fuel storage tanks in North America, to protect our water.

It was a source protection water regulation that I brought in. It was known as LUST, actually. People used to make fun of me a lot over that. There were serious problems with leaking underground

storage tanks. I worked on that with some from the environmental community, and we brought in very strong regulations around underground storage tanks.

Having said that and getting that on the record, because of course everybody forgets about it by now, I want to again congratulate Ms. Scott for bringing this

forward today.

Mr. Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): I'm pleased to join the debate and to affirm the initiative of the wonderful member

who is concerned about apprenticeship programs.

On Saturday night, I was with Brother Grimshaw and my friends at the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. I go every year to their banquet and

awards ceremony for years of service. The highlight of that for those who stay to the end is the presentation for the apprentices and the programs they're part of.

Governments can't be everything to everybody. I think our role is to set the table to be able to seize opportunities to build the kind of strong, healthy,

vibrant communities we want. In order to do that, we've got to do some effective planning, certainly in this particular area. I think the member opposite has recognized that our progress as a

nation and as a province can be no swifter than our progress in education in the broadest sense.

One of the other members was talking about his concern about his furnace. My gas fireplace went out a couple of weeks ago. I read the instructions, and when I

got to the part about, "Be really careful, because if you do this the wrong way, you're going to blow your house up," I knew it was time to call skilled tradespeople.

We're not doing enough historically to ensure that our young people have the opportunities to seize a trade and the skills they need to make the

contribution.

My brother went through an electrical apprenticeship program. He always kids about how little money I make. He does some overtime and does really quite well.

He contrasts that to some of the bright young people who graduate from law school and

article down on Bay Street for a $26,000- or $30,000-a-year job,

whereas if you're in auto mechanics or one of

the skilled trades, you're bringing home $120,000 or $130,000.

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Especially if you're unionized.

Mr. McMeekin: The brothers and sisters who are unionized of course --

Mr. Kormos: But non-unionized tradespeople don't do as well, do they, Ted?

Mr. McMeekin: I think that's an excellent point that my friend opposite raises.

The other thing I want to say is that we on this side of the House believe that the best time to repair the roof is when the sun is shining. We know that right

now, and I think the member opposite also knows, that the sun is shining in Ontario. We're creating all kinds of new opportunities, and now's the time to seize the initiative because, when all is

said and done, when the others tell you what they want to do, I think it's really important to ask them to show you what they've done.

In that context, I'm proud to be able to stand in my place as one elected to this House, who has seen the wonderful potential that finds expression as these

young men and women graduate in apprenticeship programs, to say proudly that I'm part of a government that gets it. We're moving forward with a plan to promote future prosperity. We're investing

$37 million to ensure employers have a skilled workforce; another $20 million to update facilities and equipment at community colleges; $6 million for pre-apprenticeship programs to assist

individuals; another $6 million to expand co-op diploma apprenticeship programs; and $5 million to update curriculum standards.

All of the important educational infrastructure work that needs to be done is being done by this government. In fact, it's our intent to add some 7,000 new

apprenticeship programs by 2007-08. We're doing that because we know it's important and, from this perspective, we're doing it in a wonderful way because we're working with our partners,

particularly the unionized workers, to make sure these programs get off the ground and are successful.

The Deputy Speaker: Ms. Scott, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Ms. Scott: I would like to thank all my colleagues today who have spoken to the issue of apprenticeship training for the people in the fuel

industry: the members from Peterborough, Simcoe North, Waterloo-Wellington, Perth-Middlesex, Hamilton East, Toronto-Danforth and Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot.

I'd also like to thank all the people who have been instrumental in bringing this issue to my attention in the development of the bill, such as small-business

owner Jerry Walker from Walker's Heating and Cooling Systems in Haliburton.

The HRSDC office in Peterborough laid the groundwork for my introduction of this bill. They highlighted the lack of apprenticeship training in our education

system for people working as fuel technicians and requiring fuel industry certificates to work. They carefully described the complex certification process required of people who service natural

gas, liquid propane and oil fuel appliances. They talked to me about the difficulty of having employees properly trained and certified to work in this field and how access to training is critical

for high safety standards.

Various industry representatives were also helpful and supportive throughout the development of this bill, and I'd like thank them for their time, advice and

support. I mention Scott Andison again.

Second reading of the bill has occurred at a convenient time. Direct Energy actually graduated its first heating-ventilation-air conditioning apprenticeship

program with 10 apprenticeship applications. They predict that a potential shortfall of one million skilled workers by 2020 has been forecasted. So this program that we've initiated is a positive

step forward, but it should act as an impetus for our public system. I know that the budget came out yesterday, so I'm hopeful that the apprenticeship sector will look favourably on this bill that

I've brought forward.

A special thank you to my parliamentary intern, Bec Sciarra -- Bec, stand up in the gallery -- for all her hard work on this bill. Thank you very much,

Bec.

I look forward to all my colleagues supporting this bill.

BREAST IMPLANT REGISTRY ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LE REGISTRE

DES IMPLANTS MAMMAIRES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The time allowed for private members' public business has expired. We shall first deal with ballot

item number 67 standing in the name of Ms. Churley. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I would like to refer it to the social development committee.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall the bill be referred to the standing committee on social policy? Agreed.

APPRENTICESHIP AND CERTIFICATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'APPRENTISSAGE ET LA RECONNAISSANCE PROFESSIONNELLE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall now deal with ballot item number 68 standing in the name of Ms. Scott. Is it the pleasure of

the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I would request that the bill be referred to the standing committee on social policy,

please.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall the bill be referred to the standing committee on social policy? Agreed.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been dealt with, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1201 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

POLICE OFFICERS

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Let me say for the record how truly disappointed I am that the words "police" and "firefighter" were not

even mentioned in yesterday's budget speech. I can read between the lines. This lack of even a single mention of either of these two important stakeholder groups sends a clear signal that law and

order is definitely not a priority for the McGuinty government.

Yesterday was the perfect opportunity for the government to act on its promise to put 1,000 new police officers on the streets for community policing. But they

blew it -- and, strangely, on the same day that clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 128, the grow-ops bill, mysteriously was cut short by the government after only 20 minutes.

This government keeps asking police to do more with less. Bill 128 is a perfect example. The McGuinty government want cops to bust more grow-ops but won't give

them the resources they need to enforce the bill.

So I ask again: Where are the 1,000 new officers that this government promised and repromised to fight grow-ops and organized crime, to fight Internet luring

and child pornography, to fight guns and gangs, to fight youth crime, and to just plain keep our communities safer?

What kind of a joke of an announcement can we soon expect from the McGuinty government to counteract the damage done to the policing community with this

budget? Clearly, the police have lost confidence and respect for Dalton McGuinty and his government. The broken promise on policing continues into the third year of this government. Obviously, our

men and women on the front lines deserve much better.

John Tory and the PC caucus will continue to fight for those who protect our communities. We will fight to make Dalton McGuinty keep his election promises.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Ms. Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): I rise today to talk about some of the overwhelmingly positive reaction to the good news shared by

Finance Minister Greg Sorbara yesterday with the House in regard to the McGuinty government investing $6.2 billion in post-secondary education over the next five years. This government has

earmarked $95 million alone to expand first-year spaces in medical schools. That's up 15%.

This is very welcome news for the college and university students, administrators and educators in and around my riding of Stoney Creek and across the

province. Hamilton is a student mecca, and in particular, a mecca for medical students. Hamilton is renowned for its world-class educational institutions in medicine, namely, McMaster University,

Mohawk College, the Juravinski Cancer Centre, Chedoke, St. Joseph's and St. Peter's hospitals and West Lincoln Memorial Hospital in Grimsby, which is also in my riding.

Dr. John Kelton, dean of McMaster's Michael G. DeGroote school of medicine, has said that this funding, along with the proposed school of biomedical

engineering and medicine, could really change the face of Hamilton. He also estimates the increased funding will translate into 120 more spaces at McMaster.

Dr. Greg Flynn, president of the Ontario Medical Association, has also recognized and praised the McGuinty government for investing to train more doctors. The

social and physical well-being of the constituents of my riding and this province will improve from the sound investments and firm commitments to future nurses, doctors and post-secondary students

in Ontario.

AGRICULTURE FUNDING

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): This year, farmers and other rural residents brought their tractors to Queen's Park twice, and

three times over have shut down the 401. Rural Ontario fought back against a government that was breaking its back.

But look at yesterday's budget, this government's underwhelming response. In 2004-05, the ag expenditures totalled $444 million in extraordinary costs, plus

$733 million in the OMAF budget. Yesterday, we found out that the total is dropping by an overall 52% to $564 million in 2005-06, with zero new spending planned. The bottom line is this government

is cutting spending by $613 million to Ontario's farmers.

You don't need a degree in agricultural economics to know that $613 million fewer dollars will reap disastrous results. Think of beef farmers, think of tobacco

farmers, think of the cash crop and hort. growers. All have been ignored in the budget. These farmers have to plan. Their banks have to plan.

Why is this government not presenting a plan? The agriculture minister is quoted as saying, "We will be there for farmers." Where were you when the budget was

drawn up? You are at the cabinet table; your job is to defend our farmers. Why have they been abandoned? The only thing renewed in this budget is this government's dedication to shut out farmers,

to shut out rural Ontarians from the support they deserve.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr. Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East): After years of neglect, post-secondary education is getting its biggest funding increase in 40 years:

$6.2 billion. What a great day for higher learning. This funding will not only help students get better access to post-secondary education; it will also ensure that when they get there, they will

have smaller classes because of this government's vision and leadership.

Yesterday's budget means more resources for our universities and colleges. It includes an increase in faculty at colleges and universities to accommodate

higher enrolment. This will mean that our students will get more face time with their professors, which will help improve student success. The Premier has always said that our people are our best

asset. By facilitating better student-faculty interaction, we are improving the student experience and learning support systems.

This is an exciting time, not only for us here in this House, but for the people beyond these doors who work hard each and every day to educate Ontario

students. I would like to share this quotation with you: "My colleagues and I are anxious to start training the next generation of doctors, nurses, teachers and entrepreneurs.... This is a very

optimistic day for colleges and universities." That is from Michael Doucet, president of the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations.

Ontario's economy is dependent on a skilled labour force and an educated public. Yesterday's commitment to post-secondary education will ensure that Ontario's

economy remains strong. Moving forward, these commitments will ensure that Ontario has a strong workforce that is second to none.

AGRICULTURE FUNDING

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Yesterday's budget was a devastating blow to rural and small-town Ontario, and a testament to the

failure of the Minister of Agriculture to adequately represent this critically important segment of Ontario. Many parts of rural Ontario are now in crisis. The continued closure of the US border

has impacted not only beef farmers but virtually everyone in rural Ontario: dairy and cash crop farmers, feed and implement dealers, small business owners and on and on.

Our agriculture minister promised leadership in providing stability to the farming industry, but instead of providing leadership he has furnished failure and

surrender. A 23% budget cut in a time of crisis is not only difficult to fathom, it's impossible. I bear no ill will toward Minister Peters -- I like him personally -- but he has failed to do his

job. He sat by while two of his Liberal cabinet colleagues secured $400 million for a casino in Windsor -- almost 80% of the agriculture budget -- and then allowed his same cabinet colleagues to

gut his budget to the detriment of thousands of rural Ontario families. The minister must step down.

PUBLIC HEALTH

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Last night, I attended a public meeting hosted by Paula Fletcher, councillor for Toronto-Danforth,

ward 30, and Deputy Mayor Sandra Bussin, councillor for East York, ward 32, where Toronto Public Health reported on the results of a comprehensive health study done in south Riverdale and the

Beaches. The results were based on mortality data from 1979 to 1990, cancer cases from 1985 to 1999 and hospital admissions from 1985 to 1998.

Here are some of the things they found. Overall mortality rates were higher in south Riverdale and the Beaches, compared to their respective comparison

neighbourhoods. South Riverdale had higher rates of mortality from circulatory and respiratory illnesses than the comparison communities. The Beaches had higher rates of mortality and hospital

admissions from circulatory and respiratory illnesses.

These studies were done at a time when the Ashbridges sewage treatment plant was up and running and the garbage incinerator was up and running, as well as

other polluting industries.

One of the main recommendations from these results is: "It is recommended that the Ontario Minister of the Environment consider cumulative impacts from new

emission sources that add to existing ambient pollution levels before issuing a certificate of approval for new or expanded industrial facilities...."

I would tell the government: Do not bring in the proposed PEC big gas plant; do not allow the burning of garbage, whether it's gasification or any other form.

This study speaks loud and clear, and I would ask the government to respect it.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr. Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the tremendous and historic investment the McGuinty

government has made in post-secondary education in this province.

I couldn't be happier that students at Centennial College in my riding, at the University of Toronto's Scarborough campus just next door in the minister's

riding, and around Ontario will now have far more opportunities and far fewer burdens as they pursue their programs of choice.

Our government understands that an investment in post-secondary education today is an investment in jobs tomorrow, which is why we're making the largest

multi-year investment in post-secondary education and training in 40 years through Reaching Higher: the McGuinty government plan for post-secondary education. Over the next five years, we will be

investing $6.2 billion more in post-secondary education and training. This $6.2-billion investment will mean more access, higher quality and better accountability in post-secondary education in

Ontario.

It's clear that colleges and universities around the province agree that, considering the massive cuts to post-secondary education and massive tuition hikes

that occurred under the previous Conservative and NDP governments, the McGuinty government's budget provides exactly the support they now need.

I was delighted to hear that Dr. Rick Miner, chair of the committee of presidents of the Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario, the

association that represents Centennial College and other colleges around the province, had this to say about our investment: "We are certainly pleased to see funding improvements that have been

provided by the government. This budget is a major step forward as Ontario colleges strive to produce greater numbers of skilled and highly trained graduates in order to bolster Ontario's

economy."

We are very proud of this budget, and we're proud of the investment this budget makes in post-secondary education.

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): Speaker, $6.2 billion -- I said "billion" -- the best in 40 years. No wonder Alison Forbes, chair of the Ontario

Undergraduate Student Alliance, says, "We're absolutely ecstatic at what they've done for both quality and affordability at the same time," and she's right.

The McGuinty government said education was one of our priorities. Today, the day after the budget, we've proven all those naysayers wrong. After 40 years -- 30

under the Progressive Conservative Party -- we have a government which knows that to ensure economic security for our province, we must invest in education to produce a skilled workforce that can

compete and will compete.

To Mr. Tory I say, join with the Canadian Federation of Students, who praised this government for putting money into post-secondary education and operating

grants.

Mr. Tory, you said we missed an opportunity. We don't take opportunities like your party. We don't send out $200 cheques and leave the province with a huge

deficit. We manage our resources and invest in the most important resource of all: our children, our youth, our future workforce.

Mr. Tory, please listen to what people are saying and get in touch with Ontarians. Missed opportunity? Pay down credit card debt? That's what you say, Mr.

Tory. I'm here to tell you that the budget is giving opportunity to Ontarians. We are paying down the credit card debt that your party left behind. Just sit back and watch the ride, Mr. Tory.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): I rise today to speak about the historic budget that the Minister of Finance delivered in this House

yesterday.

The budget marked a turning point for Ontario. Post-secondary education, health care and infrastructure had suffered through years of government neglect in

this province, a fact confirmed by the departing member for Whitby-Ajax last night on Studio 2. The budget extolled Liberal values. We believe in quality education that is accessible to everyone.

We believe in medicare as part of the foundation of what it means to be Canadian. We believe in and practise fiscal responsibility every day. The budget reflected all of that, and we're proud of

it.

In fact, not only are we proud of it, the leader of the official opposition endorsed our budget yesterday, and I wanted to thank him for it. But it seems that

it took him until this morning to decide he was opposed to what he said last night on CBC TV.

I've never heard a politician talk so much and say so little. I think the visiting member for Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Southgate will speak to the budget this

afternoon and clarify for us all the evolution of his multiple positions.

I think John Tory finally understands that Ontarians don't want to see slash and burn; they want a balanced approach. We're moving Ontario forward, and while

he may be a little bit tentative as he jumps on and off our bandwagon, I'm glad he finally has, I think. This government is building a better future for our citizens. We know that the balanced

approach we're taking is the right one. John Tory knows that as well, I think. I look forward to the Tory caucus helping us pass the budget legislation just as soon as possible, I think.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I believe we have unanimous consent to move a motion without notice

regarding the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Do we have unanimous consent, as requested by the government House leader? Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: I move that in addition to its regularly scheduled meeting times, the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly be

authorized to meet on Monday, May 16, 2005, for the purpose of considering Bill 133,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act in respect of enforcement

and other matters.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Hon. Mary Anne V. Chambers (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): Welcome to a new era for post-secondary education in Ontario.

After well over a decade of neglect, we are turning the corner and Reaching Higher by investing in the skills and potential of our people.

Reaching Higher: the McGuinty government plan for post-secondary education represents $6.2 billion in new investments. It is the largest multi-year investment

in 40 years for Ontario's higher education system.

Our plan will mean improved financial assistance for 135,000 college and university students, through the most significant improvements to student aid since

the Ontario student assistance program was established in 1978.

It will mean tuition grants for 32,000 students from low-income families who are in their first or second year of study at a college or university. It will

mean more higher education opportunities for traditionally underrepresented groups. This includes aboriginal students, students with disabilities, francophone students and students who are the

first in their family to attend a college or university.

We will create 7,000 new apprenticeship opportunities every year by 2007-08. There will be more opportunities for new Canadians to contribute fully to the

success of our province, thereby maximizing Ontario's economic prosperity.

Our plan will mean that by 2009-10, 14,000 more Ontarians will be able to pursue graduate education each year. It will mean more affordable and accessible

graduate education through the creation of a $100-million graduate fellowship endowment. It will also mean a better educational experience for graduate students through the establishment of new

university faculty chairs for research.

Students will have more interaction with professors and instructors, improving their overall post-secondary experience through the addition of 3,300 new

faculty members. Students will enjoy a safe and healthier learning environment through an immediate $200-million investment to better repair and maintain college and university campus buildings.

College students and apprentices will have an enhanced learning experience through a $50-million investment in new equipment. Pathways for students will be improved through increased collaboration

between Ontario's colleges and universities.

The proposed new Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario would undertake research in areas such as access and quality, track performance in the

post-secondary education system and advise the government on how we can achieve better results.

There will be greater openness and transparency through the proposed inclusion of universities under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act,

and the proposed Private Career Colleges Act would strengthen the private career colleges sector and provide better protection for its 38,000 students.

This historic investment our government is making in Ontario's future prosperity is even more significant when it is considered within the context of the

fiscal challenges we face as a result of the legacy of the previous government.

With our plan to reach higher, we are charting a much different course for post-secondary education than the one chosen by the previous Conservative and NDP

governments. They failed to recognize that the future prosperity of the province of Ontario depends on the skills and knowledge of our people. They cut operating funding, leading to fewer faculty

and larger classes. They put a greater share of the cost of post-secondary education on the backs of students. Over the 13 years of Tory and NDP rule, tuition fees in Ontario nearly tripled, while

student assistance became less accessible.

Last year, the McGuinty government made history in Ontario by freezing tuition fees for two years. And we will sit down with our students, our colleges and our

universities to develop a longer-term tuition policy framework for implementation in September 2006.

This historic investment in postsecondary education is essential to the future prosperity of our province. We know that it is a knowledge-based economy, and it

is our greatest strength that we are supporting: our people.

With Reaching Higher, the McGuinty government plan for post-secondary education, our students win, their families win and Ontario's economy wins.

EDUCATION FUNDING /

SUBVENTIONS DESTINÉES À L'ÉDUCATION

Hon. Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): The McGuinty government has demonstrated throughout our mandate to date that we not only support

our publicly funded education system; we stand for it. Our Premier is working hard to be the education Premier. We believe that our government and our province can only be successful if students

are successful first. That is why yesterday's budget included another significant investment in publicly funded education, even in a time of significant fiscal pressure. Within the next school

year, we will have met 100% of the value of funding improvements that Dr. Rozanski called for during the last government.

Those dollars were