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

December 7, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2006-Dec-07 (PDF)

L133 - Thu 7 Dec 2006 / Jeu 7 déc 2006

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 7 December 2006 Jeudi 7 décembre 2006

Private Members’ Public Business

Raw milk

Protecting Vulnerable Workers Act (Employment Agencies), 2006 Loi de 2006 sur la protection des travailleurs vulnérables (agences de placement)

Raw milk

Protecting Vulnerable Workers Act (Employment Agencies), 2006 Loi de 2006 sur la protection des travailleurs vulnérables (agences de placement)

Raw milk

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

Hospital services

Water quality

Forest Industry

Murray Barkley

Government Spending

Dana Robbins

Holiday season

Doctors’ services

Report, Office of the Integrity Commissioner

MOTIONS

Withdrawal of Bills

Committee sittings

Native youth

ORAL QUESTIONS

Public sector accountability

Access to health care

Hydro One

Children’s aid societies

Workers’ compensation

Education

Hydro One

Environmental protection

Ontario economy

Employment

Children’s health services

Injured workers

PETITIONS

Land titles

Child protection

Fair access to professions

Pedestrian walkway

Gravesites of former Premiers

School facilities

National child benefit supplement

Highway 35

Gravesites of former premiers

Natural resources program funding

Fair access to professions

Electricity supply

National child benefit supplement

Business of the house

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Mandatory Blood Testing Act, 2006 Loi de 2006 sur le dépistage obligatoire par test sanguin

PUBLIC SERVICE OF ONTARIO STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS AYANT TRAIT À LA FONCTION PUBLIQUE DE L’ONTARIO

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

Private Members’ Public Business

Raw milk

Mr. Bill Murdoch (Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound): I move that, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should immediately form an all-party task force to examine the issues surrounding raw milk and that the all-party task force report its findings to the House before the end of the spring session.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Murdoch has moved private member’s notice of motion number 32. Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr. Murdoch, you have up to 10 minutes. The floor is yours.

Mr. Murdoch: This resolution does not choose sides. It does not say, “Drink raw milk.” It does not say, “Don’t drink raw milk.” This resolution has only one aim: to debate. Debate is the foundation of our democratic system. We were elected to this House to discuss important issues. So today I put before you an opportunity to discuss a subject that has stirred up a lot of questions in our constituencies, in the media, on the street and even at home, but that has not yet been debated among us here in the legislative chamber.

The reason we need to look at this issue of raw milk is because (

a) there is a thriving underground market in every constituency of Ontario; people—families, children—are consuming this product; (

b) the issue of public health is in question, and it is our duty to examine that concern; and (

c) none of us here is an expert on food choices, including myself. In fact, I don’t even drink milk. Maybe the odd chocolate milk, but that’s about it for me. So we should allow an all-party task force to examine the issues related to raw milk.

In Ontario, non-pasteurized milk is illegal for sale; the law is clear. But it is a 70-year-old rule made during the industrialization of farming in Ontario when undeniably some of the milk supply was dirty and deadly.

To quote an editorial from the Owen Sound Sun Times—and the Sun Times, which I don’t always agree with, have agreed that this is a good resolution and should be debated in the House—“The ‘science’ of producing hygienic raw milk has progressed greatly since the days when our grandmothers milked cows by hand into an old tin bucket and asked us if we wanted a taste.” Today’s farms are equipped with modern, stainless steel tanks, refrigerated trucks and inspection methods. Today’s farming has been made safer with access to these new tools.

But with that safety comes automation and over-processing, and I think you’ll agree that more people are, for that reason, turning to organic or all-natural food. Non-pasteurized milk is one of the new consumer choices.

According to a government document, a quarter of a million Canadians drink non-pasteurized milk. I don’t have the statistics on how many consumers eat raw fish, buy organic vegetables, organic bread, organic cheese or juices, prefer their steak raw, or even wear hemp clothing, but I imagine the number could be on the rise, because consumers today want choice and control of the product they consume. Some will argue that provincial and federal laws that require pasteurization of milk violate the constitutional rights of individuals to make their own food choices. You decide.

In America, although federal law bans interstate commerce in raw milk, a patchwork of state laws apply, with sales of raw milk legal in about 28 states. A certified system for selling raw milk exists in nearly half of the United States. Depending on the state, Americans can purchase and farmers can sell raw milk. It’s a system raw milk activists here are now fighting for. Should Ontarians have the right to choose whether they want to drink raw milk or pasteurized milk?

Should we counter the thriving underground market by instituting a certified process that would allow the government to monitor which local farms are producing raw milk safely? It could certainly address the issue of public health. You decide.

I say this, and you will agree: It is essential to make milk, all milk, safe to consume, because raw milk could, like any other food we consume—meat, water, chocolate, and vegetables like spinach and carrots, all of which were recalled over the past few months—pose a risk of bacterial outbreak.

I want to discuss why we’re here today. Why is this such a big topic?

As you know, Speaker, and a lot of other people know, in my riding of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound we had an incident about a month ago where 20 armed officers of the Ministry of Natural Resources raided a farm near Durham. The farm was owned by Michael Schmidt, who happens to be sitting here in the balcony today listening to the debate. I’m sure he’s interested in how people vote on this. But anyway, they raided his farm—again, about 20 officers carrying firearms. It was a shock when I read in the paper that this happened, because in Bruce and Grey we have a hard time finding a conservation officer when we need one.

You probably know yourself, Mr. Speaker, that we’re short around 80 conservation officers right across Ontario. Yet somewhere, somehow, they found 20 of them and raided Mr. Schmidt’s farm. Now they have charged him—I don’t know what the actual charges are—and he’ll have to go to court and face that music, whether he’s guilty of the charge or not. That’s another whole item. But what it has done is it has sparked a debate. What it has shown us, if you read the media and watch television and things like that, is that there are a lot of people in Ontario drinking raw milk, whether it’s legal or whether it’s not.

I understand a lot of dairy farmers themselves actually drink their own milk, but that’s not illegal. They can do that and that’s fine. But maybe we should look at this whole situation surrounding raw milk. I’m not saying, again, as I started off, that people should drink raw milk or they shouldn’t. I think that’s what we have to decide here in the House. That’s why we get elected. When there is a problem in your constituency or in your riding or in Ontario, I think it’s up to us as politicians to bring that problem here, bring it to where we debate it and look at it.

Maybe we have to make some laws; maybe we leave it alone. I don’t know. But if we don’t debate it and if we don’t look at the situation, then things carry on. As we know, a lot of people seem to want to drink raw milk or are drinking raw milk. So if it’s as bad as the doctors have said—there have been many editorials that say it’s really bad for you and it could carry disease. We know in the past it did. Before they brought in pasteurization, we know there were problems, but that was 70 years ago. So I think it’s time for a debate in this House on this.

All I’m asking for is that we have a committee drawn up between all three parties and we go and look at the issue and we come back here in the spring. Why not bring our results, whatever they may be, back to this House, back for more debate, and then we look at that? What we come up with, I have no idea. I have no idea what we may come up with, but I think it deserves looking at. Because if there are many people out there drinking this now and we in this House do nothing as legislators and somebody gets sick and dies, then it is our responsibility because we did nothing and stood by and knew there were things going on that may have been a problem.

So I think it is up to us to look at the situation. That’s what we do when we have problems like this, or we have in the past: We have looked at other problems. I can’t see what would be wrong with a task force made up of one from each party and maybe an alternate or something. We will adjourn this House next week and we’ll come back in the spring. We have time to go and look at the issues around raw milk. I’m sure there are going to be lots of people lining up to tell us pro or con. But then it’s up to us here in this House to make laws. That’s what we do. We do it every day. We debate a bill here every day and it either passes or is defeated, and it’s a law for the people of Ontario.

I think we have a problem. I think it’s my job as a politician to bring it to the House. All I’m asking for is that we sit down and look at it in a non-partisan way, because this is not a partisan issue. I’m sure people from all three parties may be drinking this milk; I don’t know. Let’s go out and look. But if we do it in a non-partisan way, then I think we can come up with some ideas of what we should do. As I say, I have no preconceived ideas of what should be done. I just think this House should do this, and this is the way we do it. This is our democratic process.

This is private members’ time, and I have a private member’s resolution. We will vote for this resolution at noon. We won’t vote till noon; we’ll have a chance to debate it around here until 11 o’clock and then we’ll vote at noon. Then, hopefully it will pass and the government in its wisdom will set up a task force for this winter so we can go across Ontario and look at the issue of raw milk. That’s all I want; nothing more, nothing less. I would hope that when the time comes all three parties can support this, because I don’t have any preconceived ideas.

I just know there are people out there saying, “We want this choice.” So it’s up to us to look at it. I appreciate it, and I will be here for the wrap-up.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): It’s a pleasure to get an opportunity to get some words on the record today. I’d just like to start off by looking at the science behind pasteurized milk. It was Louis Pasteur, a French chemist and microbiologist, who published a paper in 1861. He was credited with the process of pasteurization, which bears his name. While researching the causes of spoilage for the wine industry, he conducted experiments with fermentation and spoilage. He discovered that the cause of the spoilage was bacteria floating in the air.

This led to pasteurization, or the gentle heating and cooling of the product. He discovered that pasteurization killed pathogenic bacteria. His work saved the wine and beer industry in France, and milk producers adopted his methods and applied them to their industry.

We know that raw milk is heated to a temperature of 63 degrees Celsius for a maximum of 30 minutes and then cooled to 40 degrees Fahrenheit or four degrees Celsius, and then it becomes pasteurized milk.

I want to get on the record some of the experts who have conducted extensive scientific research in this area. Health Canada, in its annual update of August 1, 2006, reminds Canadians about the risks of drinking raw milk:

“Raw (unpasteurized) milk ... could contain bacteria that can make you seriously ill.

“Several different kinds of bacteria that could be found in raw milk, such as salmonella, E. coli and listeria, have been linked to food-borne illness. These bacteria can lead to very serious health conditions ranging from fever, vomiting and diarrhea to life-threatening kidney failure, miscarriage and death.

“Because of these health concerns, food and drug regulations require that all milk available for sale in Canada be pasteurized.”

Another expert, Doug Powell, who is the scientific director of the food safety network for the University of Guelph:

“Powell has observed that raw milk drinkers often tout the benefits of better nutrition or taste, but there is no scientific evidence to support these ideas. The risks of serious infection are often downplayed by the farmers who sell raw milk. They often declare that they have been drinking raw milk their whole life. In fact, when an outbreak is traced back to a particular farm, it is often found that the farm family has been drinking the unpasteurized milk without developing symptoms.

This is because repeated exposure to micro-organisms can lead to a level of immunity, generally following several potentially life-threatening bouts of illness. But this farm family immunity can be misleading. It may provide a level of protection, yet no one’s immune system can protect against all micro-organisms found in raw milk. Powell cautions that people with weak immune systems,” particularly the elderly and children, “are particularly at risk.”

Pasteurization came about in 1938. It came about when the then Premier of Ontario, Mitchell Hepburn, visited two hospitals in Toronto. He visited Sick Kids Hospital and Toronto General Hospital, and he viewed row upon row upon row of cots of children who had been impacted by the effects of drinking raw milk and the disease tuberculosis, which they had contracted. So in the throne speech of 1938, with his government, he brought in pasteurization to make sure that all Ontario would be protected.

Indeed, the medical officer of health in Durham region, Dr. Murray McQuigge, who became quite famous through the Walkerton tragedy, has cautioned about unpasteurized milk.

The scientific evidence is there to support the pasteurization of milk, and I don’t believe there’s any need for an all-party committee to study it at this time.

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I want to rise in support of my colleague’s resolution. The reason I believe it’s appropriate that we should move forward with this is that, as Mr. Murdoch indicated to the House, that’s our responsibility. It’s so typical of the Liberal government to say, “Let’s not study it. We know enough and we know better. Government knows best.” I think the people of Ontario are sick and tired of hearing from a government that tells them what to do and the basis on which to do it because it is they, the government of the day, that tells them how to do it.

I believe that we’re not doing our job as legislators if we don’t do what Mr. Murdoch is asking us to do, and that’s simply to form an all-party committee to study the matter and to get the facts. I disagree with the member opposite who suggests you already have all of the facts, because I don’t believe that you do. Why not have an open mind? Why not behave as a legislator with an open mind, get the facts, study them, and then come back and report to the House? That really is all that is being asked.

I feel that as a member of this Legislature, I have a responsibility to respond to my constituents. I have a number of petitions. I have received a number of letters from constituents who say, “As my member of provincial Parliament, I’m asking you to support this resolution, to look into the matter, and to report back because at issue here is a principle.”

That’s why I think it’s important that we study the matter, and the principle is an individual citizen’s freedom of choice as to the kind of food that they consume and to determine where that food should be produced and how it should be produced. Surely, in the province of Ontario today, we want our citizens to at least have that freedom to make a decision, an informed decision, about what they consume. What we don’t want is more government telling us what to eat, how to eat it and at what time. That’s next: This government is going to tell us when we can consume our food. I think it’s time that we simply agreed to take this forward.

I want to read from a letter from one of my constituents; I think they have it right.

Here’s what they say: “What we would like is this issue to be investigated, for regulations and a system of inspections to be established, and for people to be allowed to make an informed choice.” They also say this—and I want the members of the government to please listen to this: “Approximately 30 states, including the state of California where they do have mass distribution of raw milk, and numerous countries in Europe did not legalize the sale of raw milk because they were blindly ‘jumping off of a bridge.’ They studied the issue and decided to support their citizens’ right to make their own health choices.

So is looking to these others to attempt to learn what they learned the same as ‘jumping off a bridge’? Okay, then let us study it ourselves, and learn our own lessons, but at least let us have an open mind and study the issue, and not ignore it because some people in industry and government would rather not.”

Another very important aspect of this is the fact that we have heard over the last number of weeks over and over again—and just this morning, we heard a report that green onions are being eliminated from Taco Bells across North America. Now, this government would say, “We’ll eliminate green onions forever because there’s a problem.” You see, it’s not the green onions; it’s how they’re being handled. And I would suggest that that may well be what we find as we open our minds and investigate this. It’s not the raw milk that causes the problem.

When there’s a problem, I suggest it may be how it’s being handled or mishandled. So perhaps what this government should be doing is ensuring that we have the appropriate regulations in place to ensure the proper handling, so that people can in fact make their individual personal choices rather than have government once again move, now into our kitchen. They’re everywhere else, and now they’re going to move into the kitchen and tell us how to conduct our lives.

I think it’s fundamentally wrong. I support this resolution because it’s open-minded. It simply is saying to the Legislature, “Let’s get the facts and then behave responsibly and ensure that the people of Ontario are protected, while allowing them their freedom of choice.”

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins–James Bay): Well, after listening to that speech and after hearing those arguments, I know I’m on the right side not being on that side. My Lord.

Just to the points that the previous speaker raised—first of all, I’m a New Democrat. I’m not here to defend the government. I have a lot of arguments with the government. But to suggest that any government, including this government, has a jackboots approach to telling people how they are to live, I think, is a little bit beyond the pale. I listen to those things and it sounds to me quite inflammatory, in the opposite direction. I am actually kind of upset, thinking about it. But the point he makes is that government is trying to tell people what to do.

Well, governments are here to make sure there is public safety. If you take a look at what we’ve done over the years, governments have decided some things in the common good of the people.

For example, this House, including the Conservatives, voted in favour in order to ban smoking in public buildings. Is that not telling people how to live their lifestyles? We did that for a reason: because we recognize that, first of all, smoking for individuals and second-hand smoke is a public health issue. We said as a Legislature, and rightfully so—as a former smoker from 15 years ago and 60 pounds later—that smoking is bad for you and we’ve got to get people off that habit.

We recognized that it has been an allowed substance for years and years and that people have been hooked and addicted to it with the consent of government. We needed to find a way to give people incentives to stop smoking, and one of the ways of doing that was to limit their ability to smoke in public places and other areas. As a result, there are far fewer people smoking today than there were, let’s say, 10 years ago. As a health issue, that’s a good thing.

So for the member from the Conservative Party to argue that somehow it’s bad for government to put policies and laws in place that are in the public good when it comes to health and safety or other issues is way beyond the pale and I’ve really got to disagree. If I had an inkling to support this, just on the basis of that speech I’ve got to vote against the motion.

I do want to say, however, that there is an issue here, and that is that there is a growing movement, and rightfully so, of people who want to go back to organic products. People want to go to their farmers’ markets and buy foods, vegetables or meats or whatever it might be, that were not chemically altered by the processes of huge farms trying to push growth in cattle to a higher yield in terms of the overall time it takes for an animal to be brought to market, or on the issue of vegetables, the same. Yes, we need to do something to make that easier for people, and that is a whole other issue.

But to somehow or other equate, in this debate, that raw milk is the same thing as organic milk—let’s be clear. Organic milk has to be pasteurized. Let’s not forget that. I look at some of the people up there who support this particular motion. Even if a person wants organic milk, we need to pasteurize it. It’s something we do. It’s a standard.

To somehow try to mix into the debate that this is an “anti” movement, that because government says pasteurization has to happen and has been doing so for many years, it’s somehow against the idea of allowing people to buy organic products—let’s not lose the baby with the bathwater. We still pasteurize organic milk, and let’s remember that.

Now to the debate. I understand what the member is trying to do here. I commend him to a great degree. Mr. Murdoch is one of the members in the House who always speaks his mind and, quite frankly, tries to do what is right. I accept much of his argument in regard to what he brings forward, but the problem I have is that it does fly in the face of what we already know from past practice and by way of science. We know, for example, that in the United States, where states have allowed raw milk to be sold on the open market, there’s a much higher level of disease.

We don’t have to go out and study it in Ontario to know what is happening already in other parts of the world. The stats are there already. After a conversation with my good friend Mr. Murdoch last night at the Trillium Foundation event, I went back to my apartment in the evening and did a bit of looking up on the Internet to check this out. One of the interesting things I found in the debate on blogs and other places is that if you go back and correlate what is happening in states where raw milk is allowed to be sold and used, there’s a higher degree of disease, things like tuberculosis, E. coli and others.

People have actually died. For us in Ontario to say we want to look at that—I understand that we should always look at things, but you also have to look at what is already happening in other jurisdictions and what is happening with science. We know, for example, that prior to pasteurization here in Ontario, tuberculosis was a huge issue. Of all tuberculosis cases that were diagnosed in children, in those that died 10% came from milk. After pasteurization, that went to zero. It’s a public health issue. That’s how we have to look at this particular issue.

I say to my honourable colleague that I understand what he is trying to do, but we also have to look at what science and other jurisdictions have to say on this particular issue. Where we know raw milk has been allowed to be used, it has not been what people think it is. It’s not entirely safe. If people are talking about organic milk, fine, you pasteurize it, but it’s a very different issue.

The other issue, and this is one of the things I want to raise for the people in the farm community, is the whole issue of the supply management system. Supply management for dairy farmers is hugely important. Quite frankly, it is the only way those farmers are able to survive and know they can make the kinds of investments they have to make in their farms to be able to stay afloat.

Part of what this debate represents—if we were to say, “Let’s go to raw milk,” it’s a backdoor approach to opening up or destroying the supply management system. This is part of the problem I had when I listened to Mr. Klees. Some of those guys are so far right that they would go as far as saying, “Get rid of supply management.” I, for one, don’t want to be a party to anything that is going to destroy the supply management system in the dairy industry, because doing that will kill all the family farms.

We don’t need the mega-farms run by the large industries that want to get into it; we need the family farm out there, and supply management is one of those things that allows that to happen. Without supply management, in many of our ridings across Ontario, even in my riding in northeastern Ontario where we do have dairy farming, it would mean the death of the small family farm.

I heard the previous member in the Conservative caucus talk about choice and about the freedom of choice. Those are just buzzwords to say, “Let’s open up the market and do what the heck we want.” We do put some conditions on the market to make sure the little guy doesn’t get walked on by the big guy every now and then. I know that; I come from the forest industry in northern Ontario. The large forest companies now control everything. Look what’s going on.

We’re being decimated in northern Ontario, greatly because of what this government does, but also because those companies have gotten so big that they’re a virtual monopoly and they get to decide what’s going to happen. If they can operate with three mills and make more money than they did with five mills, they’re going to drop down to three. I’m all for competition, and one of the things that allows that to happen is the supply management system.

It was interesting. I was going through the Internet last night and I just happened to pick up the papers this morning, and there was an interesting article, which was referred to earlier. One of the things I heard about, but I think it needs to be said for the record, is that we do know of some cases—in Barrie there have been at least four cases where children have been taken to hospital because they’ve become sick from drinking raw milk. It brings me to the point the member makes. He says he wants to go back and study this.

I think there’s already enough evidence out there that it’s not something we really want to do. We would only be kidding ourselves and raising expectations falsely if we were to allow this to happen.

My last point, which I want to make to those people who are either watching this, reading Hansard later or who are here, is let’s not be confused about this process. I will say this outright: If this motion were to pass today, you wouldn’t get a committee. It wouldn’t happen. Many motions have been passed in this House during private members’ hour that the government ignores anyway. The government, at the end of the day, decides what’s going to be called before a committee. This would be one of many issues that a committee would have to deal with. Committees now have government bills before them.

It’s the last session before an election. We’re going to have another session in the spring and we’re going be into an election next fall. There are government bills and plenty more private members’ bills ahead of this particular motion. To give people the expectation that “If only this motion had passed we would have got our fair say”—it would never have come to the light of day. This motion today could be voted for with 100% acceptance by this Legislature and it wouldn’t get a committee hearing, because there’s far more committee business in front of those committees—

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe–Grey): No, it’s a new all-party committee. You missed the whole point.

Mr. Bisson: If you think an all-party committee is going to be created for this, you’re sadly mistaken. I’ve been here as long as you, sir, since 1990, and I know that all-party committees happen very rarely in this place, and all-party committees are normally to deal with fairly large issues, such as the constitutional committee back in the early 1990s. I think we’ve only had one since. I just say to the people watching this—

Mr. Wilson: We had one on electricity.

Mr. Bisson: That’s what I’m saying: We had another one afterwards, and it was during your term. But they’re normally for very, very large issues. So I don’t think this thing would even get there, should we vote for it in the affirmative. Thank you.

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel (Lambton–Kent–Middlesex): I certainly am very pleased to get involved in this debate. I want to speak from some experiences I’ve had in my own riding.

In April 1986, a kindergarten class in Lambton county had an outbreak of E. coli 0157:H7 after the class had been on a field trip to a dairy farm where the children had been given samples of raw milk. Several of the children got sick. They had gastrointestinal problems; quite frankly, they had bloody diarrhea, which, as any parent knows, is extremely dangerous. Four of the adults who accompanied the children also had a problem. Three of the children were hospitalized, with one ending up in the ICU, and one of the children has permanent damage as a result.

The families of these children suffered, but so did the entire farm community. First there was the real worry that one or more of the children would die. Then, once that concern had passed, there was the worry about liability. Suddenly, farmers were reluctant to participate in a program we had in the area called Agriculture in the Classroom, which included field trips to farms. And of course the dairy farmers in the community were very concerned about the public perception of milk. They wanted to make sure the image of milk hadn’t been changed, that the image stayed as being safe and wholesome.

One of the things that happened in the community was that farmers were very reluctant to offer any kinds of raw products to anybody who visited their farms.

These weren’t isolated incidents. This was in 1986, but as recently as April 2005, there was a similar outbreak in the Barrie area.

Some people will tell you that there is no harm in drinking raw milk. The media speaks of how clean farm operations are, especially those operations that use the process of people buying shares in a cow to access the raw milk. I have no doubt that these are clean farms; of course they’re clean farms. My parents were Dutch immigrants and they prided themselves on their cleanliness. I can remember, as a child, my sisters and I being handed broad brushes and a pail of whitewash and told to go and whitewash the stone walls in the interior of our dairy barn.

My mom would don a scarf over her head and would go chasing cobwebs with a broom. They kept that barn very, very clean. But the fact is that I also remember my dad using a pail and a stool to do the milking. It depended a great deal on the disposition of the cow. Some cows were calm, but some would get impatient with the milking process and would start to swat their tails or kick their hind feet up, and every so often something would fall into the pail. It could be straw or another contaminant that lies on the floor of barns, but it would get there. It makes me wonder, what happens now?

My mother boiled that milk. She understood that that milk could be contaminated. She understood all the perils that were around it and she made sure she boiled that milk.

Ontario has a very good history in food safety. In 1896, Adelaide Hoodless lost her 14-month-old son to a disease he contracted as a result of drinking raw milk. Ms. Hoodless became the founder of the largest rural farm women’s organization in the world. Ms. Hoodless is the founder of the Women’s Institute. The Women’s Institute, as everyone knows, started their years by teaching women how to prepare foods properly and safely for their children. As a result of that, Premier Mitch Hepburn in 1938 legislated the pasteurization of milk. That’s how we came to that point. That’s what brought it about: Adelaide Hoodless. She made sure that everyone understood the dangers of raw milk.

As the member from Timmins–James Bay has said, there is a clear difference between raw milk and organic milk, and we need to remember that. I understand the movement to go back to drinking and eating natural foods, but we need to understand that safety also needs to be attached to this. I want to say for the people in this Legislature, I have had no calls at my constituency office from constituents on this issue. I think they all remember 1986 and those kindergarten children in Lambton county.

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand–Norfolk–Brant): I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on this debate this morning on raw milk. As agriculture critic, I want to start by stating very clearly that John Tory and our entire PC caucus unequivocally support supply management. Dairy farmers were here recently and they made their position very clear yet again. Supply management, in contrast to what some members opposite have said, is untouchable, from our perspective. Every PC MPP signed the FarmGate5 supply management petition and will continue to defend supply management whenever necessary.

I don’t know whether this issue would have relevance for that or not. That’s something that may well come out if this Legislature decides to strike a task force.

Again, we are debating whether the government of Ontario should create an all-party task force to examine the issues around raw milk and then table its findings to the House prior to the spring session of this Parliament. Just to clarify, there are a number of things we’re not debating today. We’re not debating the health merits of raw milk necessarily; we’re not debating whether we should allow raw milk in stores; we’re not debating whether Ontario should allow for mass distribution of raw milk.

We’re simply debating whether or not this Legislative Assembly would like to learn more about the issues surrounding raw milk through an all-party committee. From what I can see, we’ve got nothing to fear and essentially everything to gain by learning more about this—or any other issue, for that matter.

Recently, we saw in this Legislature that the current government doesn’t like to hear input. I think of Bill 107; we saw a case there where people who wanted to testify before that committee were not allowed to do so. On the contrary, I support the idea that we as legislators owe it to our constituents to make informed decisions on their behalf, at least to do the best we can with the evidence presented. Studying the issues around raw milk is not a policy decision; it’s essentially giving us an opportunity to do a bit of homework.

It’s entirely possible the all-party task force would return to the Legislature and confirm that people were right back in 1938. That’s when the Ontario health act made it illegal to sell or give away raw milk.

I suspect many MPPs have received e-mails, communications on raw milk; I certainly have. I’ve read e-mails supporting the issue; I’ve read e-mails opposing it. I am aware of some of the health aspects. We hear about salmonella. There are certainly instances of children dying from E. coli, perhaps contracted through raw milk. Today’s debate does not deny the existence of those health concerns. If anything, it would give us an opportunity, and a task force would give us an opportunity, to learn more about some of these disease and bacterial concerns.

It gives the health officials a platform to reinforce their concerns about raw milk. It would give consumers—I know consumers are probably present here today—an opportunity to make their case, if they so choose, with respect to the regulated delivery of milk.

Other visitors here today—dairy farmers, landowners. The task force would give farmers an access point to MPPs and an opportunity to explain how the raw milk debate would fit into issues like supply management. Again, how can we defend farmers and supply management if we don’t give them an opportunity to present their case in a forum?

I don’t drink raw milk; I don’t intend to start. We also milked cows. I remember the pasteurization, the milk thermometer. We always pasteurized our milk on the stove—we drank the milk from our own cows. So other than insight, I don’t have anything to gain by studying this issue around raw milk. Neither myself nor my wife, Cari, have invested money in a raw milk co-operative. I have given this debate a lot of thought, however, and I do intend to vote in favour of this resolution from MPP Bill Murdoch.

If it’s passed, if the government decides to respect the will of the Legislative Assembly, I really would look forward to learning more about milk. If the task force recommends maintaining the status quo, that’s acceptable to me. If anything, it would provide an extra layer of legitimacy to a system that has been in place since 1938.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale–High Park): It’s my privilege to speak about this issue today. I think there are several parts to the discussion; one, I would say, is the treatment of Mr. Schmidt himself. That’s a discussion in itself. I come from a district in Parkdale–High Park where, even with increased police presence, we can’t keep our streets safe for our seniors to come out of their homes at night. I wonder about this incredible deployment of force over this issue, and I decry it. That’s number one.

Number two is the validity of the cause itself. Of course, I hear from my colleagues to the right of me, and that’s symbolic as well as actual, “It’s only about opening up the discussion,” but the reality is that this House has limited time. You heard my colleague Mr. Bisson speak about this issue and talk about how limited the time is. There are a number of issues before this House. There are issues like my private member’s bill for a $10-an-hour living wage. There are issues like why we don’t have housing for 120,000 households in this province.

There are issues like why 13,500 children who use food banks have the right to eat at all, never mind drink raw milk versus pasteurized milk. I consider all of those issues to take precedence over this one. On that basis alone, I wouldn’t support this motion. Again, we’re only sitting for another five days and then in the spring we’re only sitting for how many weeks, and even over the winter months to try to get hearings around here on some of these issues is like pulling teeth. Again, it’s nothing against Mr. Murdoch.

I understand him to be a fine member speaking up for the constituency here, but we just don’t have time to look at this. This isn’t an issue of precedence.

I also understand that science is a variable art form, let’s say, in some instances. When I was pregnant with my daughter, who is now 29, I read a book by Benjamin Spock that said drinking wine during pregnancy is fine. There was a noted medical authority. By the time I had my son, five years later, of course it was anathema, and we know now that it’s a very dangerous practice. Science changes and scientific answers change. I am a great supporter of organic foods and making the pledge to be vegetarian in the new year and trying to support my health food stores and health food providers.

I did some very careful research. I spent many hours last night and all of this week. I’ve received e-mails from my constituents on both sides of the issue as well and looked at what’s happening and where it’s happening. One of the things I noticed—because certainly Mr. Schmidt and his supporters have drawn my attention to what is happening in the States, so I looked at what was happening there and this is what I found. I found that almost all of the states that do allow raw milk production and distribution, certainly more than we do here in Ontario, are now considering outright bans. I quote from the Columbian, from Washington state:

“The 2007 Legislature is certain to take a fresh look at banning raw milk sales in Washington because of two outbreaks this year that have been linked to unpasteurized milk.

“Last month, a 5-year-old Issaquah boy and an 8-year-old girl from Snohomish county contracted E. coli bacteria by drinking raw milk....”

This is in Washington state, but it isn’t only Washington state. Then I looked at some of the other states that, again, are looser, more lax about this than we are and I see that California has just—well, this is not just; this is going on a year—quarantined the state’s largest raw milk producer, and also legislators there are looking at bans or something approximating bans. I don’t know that bans are the answer either, really.

Obviously, this is an issue that needs to be looked at in terms of how one regulates and polices, and there’s a discussion to be had there, not here, but certainly a discussion, again, going back to the treatment of Mr. Schmidt and how we enforce our rules and regulations.

That we need our rules and regulations I think really is uncontestable. And here is the ultimate reason that we need rules and regulations: Wherever one child is at risk, wherever one child suffers, wherever one child could potentially lose kidney function, then surely as humane individuals, as parents ourselves, we have to act. I don’t think, for a variety of reasons, that it’s worth reopening this question. I think the answer has been settled. I wouldn’t go so far as to say, as Dr. McQuigge does, that this is equivalent to manslaughter, but personally I am satisfied. Nothing has stopped it—

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Further debate?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland): Once again, I commend the member opposite for bringing this resolution forward, because I know he is thinking of the better interests for all. I think you’ve heard most of the debates, the pros and cons, from both sides. But I’m going to speak about—I guess the best way is to tell a story about some personal experiences, because it brings it home. Probably most of you in this House know that I am an immigrant to this country, and back where I was born, in Italy, we did have our own cows, our own chickens, our own eggs and those kinds of things, and I used to drink milk.

But even my mother would boil the milk on the wood stove or over the wood fireplace. Back in 1960, when I first immigrated to Canada, I had my very first taste of homo milk at my uncle’s house, on the very first day I landed. That’s the day I stopped drinking milk. It was like water. It was too much. I guess the point I’m making is that even back in Italy, although I don’t think pasteurization was across the board there, we recognized that it was something we had to do.

The other piece that I want to talk about briefly is that, back in 2005, in the town that I represent—I happen to live in Brighton, just east of Toronto in the county of Northumberland. We have a really huge fall festival, Applefest. We used to be known for orchards and so forth, although we don’t have that many any more, but we still celebrate the apple product. A number of vendors were selling unpasteurized apple cider. The health unit officer visited the vendors, and all the apple cider was removed from the vendors’ stands.

I can tell you that on Monday morning when I came to my office, a lot of these folks who had those stands selling apple cider were really upset. My phone was swarmed with about half a dozen of them and their supporters and their staff, saying that they’d been doing this for years, and all of a sudden the health unit comes in with, let’s say, a heavy hand.

As I was working through the process for my constituents to try to see how we could—they’d been doing this for years, and all of a sudden they’ve got this restriction. About a month later in Durham—and this is going back not even two years—I don’t remember the fruit stand, but they were selling unpasteurized apple cider and somebody got E. coli. I can tell you that I got back to every one of those folks who phoned me about the apple cider. These are folks I know. They’re my neighbours. They’re the farmers or processors that I meet. We’re a month, a month and a half apart, and here’s what happened: The subject just died because they understood.

I guess the point I’m trying to make is that we live in a society where people depend on governments to put rules and regulations in place, although we may not like them, for the safety of the community. We’ve heard pros and cons today. We have a lot of evidence. But to go through this and have politicians make those decisions, I’m not so sure it’s the right direction. So as much as I appreciate what the member’s trying to do, I think the evidence is pretty clear, and I can’t support this.

Mr. Wilson: It’s my pleasure to support this resolution brought forward by my colleague from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, Mr. Murdoch.

As my colleague from Haldimand–Norfolk–Brant pointed out, we’re not debating supply management today. I was one of the first caucus members to sign FarmGate 5, the umbrella group that covers our supply-managed commodities. All members of the PC caucus have done that, even our newest members who came in in recent by-elections. So we’re not debating that.

I’m very proud that my predecessor was George McCague and that his father was Jack McCague, who was one of the first chairmen—I think the first—of the Ontario Milk Marketing Board, which started in my home community of Alliston. But that’s not what we’re debating. We’re really debating freedom.

As my colleague Mr. Klees said, James Wallace of the Barrie Examiner points out in an

article that there’s a considerable underground movement going on right now, whether we like it or not, of people using and drinking raw milk. We’ve seen, through Mr. Schmidt and some of his friends and colleagues, some world-class chefs that like to use the product. The fact that we’re having disagreements today about whether or not we should even form an all-party committee—a new committee, not a busy committee; it just needs a couple of members from each party to examine this issue—and the fact that we’re having differences, to me, speaks volumes that it’s an issue we should look at.

It’s appropriate, and it’s our duty, as Mr. Murdoch said, to do such things when called upon by the people of Ontario.

In the two minutes I have, I just want to read a letter that I received. I actually have five constituents who live at RR 3 Tottenham who wrote to me on December 5 indicating that they’re shareholders in Glencolton Farms and would very much like to see this issue debated:

“Dear Mr. Wilson:

“We are writing to you to inform about a regrettable event that took place on Tuesday November 21, 2006 at the Glencolton Farms, near Durham. We are writing to you to defend our rights as citizens and to defend farmer Michael Schmidt.

“We are part of a larger group of about 150 families who are cow shareowners at the Glencolton Farms: The cow share program enables us to obtain our own fresh milk from the farm while Glencolton provides shelter, feed and care for our animals.

“On November 21, Glencolton Farms was raided as part of an 18-month investigation triggered by an incident not connected to this farm and not connected to farm fresh milk, the details of which were suspected but never proven. All milk products, processing equipment, documents and other items were confiscated from the farm leaving us, the shareholders, who have relied on the farm to deliver us lab quality-controlled biodynamic milk and cheese every week since the mid 1990s, deprived of essential nourishing.

“For a better understanding related to this matter please visit the farm’s website at www.glencoltonfarms.com, where you can find Michael Schmidt’s statement and continuous updates with regards to press conferences, signed petitions and the incredible support offered by other people in the community.

“Following up on his statement made at the press conference on November 23, 2006, farmer Michael Schmidt has begun a hunger strike.

“On December 7 there will be a private member’s bill introduced at Queen’s Park by Bill Murdoch, MPP from the Grey-Bruce area, that asks to examine the issue around the availability of real milk to the citizens of Ontario.

“We ask you to please support Bill Murdoch’s private member’s bill so a task force can be set up to proactively deal with the larger raw milk issue.

“Thanking you in advance for consideration and support.”

That’s from Olga Shibanova, George Davydenko, Vera Chibanova, George Shibanov and Alexei Davydenko. I apologize if I’ve mispronounced those names, but those are the five constituents.

It’s my duty to bring these matters forward, and I support the resolution. I just don’t understand. When I was energy minister, we had an all-party committee examine issues in the electricity and energy sector. It has happened around here. It doesn’t take a lot of our resources, and I think people want to be heard on this issue.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth–Middlesex): Milk is Mother Nature’s perfect food, but only pasteurized milk is guaranteed to be safe.

If people came to this House and said, “We should have a review of whether or not it’s a good idea to put your tongue on a frozen fence post,” I would say, “We don’t have to spend any time on that.” If someone said, “We should have a review about whether or not you should take metal objects and put them into live electrical outlets,” I would say, “We don’t have to spend time reviewing that.” If someone came to me and said, “Let’s review exactly how closely aligned some members of the Conservative caucus are with the Ontario Landowners Association,” I’d say, “We don’t have to review that either.” If people say to me, “Should we review whether or not unpasteurized milk should be in the food supply?” I’d say, “No, we don’t have to review that.”

I stand with the Premier of Ontario. I stand with the medical officers of health of Ontario and with the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs in the great province of Ontario. I stand with them to say that it’s a crazy idea that we should actually spend time in this House debating something that was settled 68 years ago. When the Progressive Conservative Party was in power for 42 years subsequent, did they think this was a good idea to review? No. Did the NDP government think it was a good idea? Does our government? No.

It’s very, very clear: We do not now allow unsafe milk to be in the food supply. Our children are depending on us.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Murdoch, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Murdoch: I’d like to just thank everybody who took

part in this debate. At least we had a bit of a debate. Obviously, the government of the day is going to turn this down and doesn’t want to debate it any longer.

It’s strange that our member from Perth over there tries to grandstand on an issue that somebody may just die over, but he wants to grandstand because he knows everything. He just thinks he knows everything, and that’s unfortunate.

I am a little shocked at the NDP’s position on this, but they have the right to do that if they want. I just want to tell you that the issue is not what we’re debating here today. The issue is whether we should look at the issues around raw milk. Obviously with the number of people who are here today—and normally in private members’ hour we don’t see a lot of people here—there is an issue out there. If the government of the day doesn’t want to look at it, I can’t make them. I can only ask them to do that. They’ve decided in their wisdom they don’t want to look at this issue.

All I can say is that if somebody dies because they drank raw milk, it’s on their heads, on the government’s head, on the Liberals’ heads, on McGuinty’s head, because he doesn’t even want to look at the issue. He thinks this has all been solved because 70 years ago we made a decision. Maybe something’s changed in 70 years, maybe not. All I’m asking is that we look at it—not taking any position at all, but just look at it. But we have a government that’s closed, doesn’t want to do anything, and that’s unfortunate.

I want to tell you, though, that the National Farmers Union supported the resolution, the Christian Farmers supported the resolution, and lots of media. On CFOS last week, we had a debate where 20-some people phoned in, and most of them thought the resolution was fine. They didn’t have opinions. All those other groups don’t have opinions. They want to look at it. That’s all we’re here for as politicians: to look at these issues. Unfortunately, it seems the government doesn’t want to.

Protecting Vulnerable Workers Act (Employment Agencies), 2006 Loi de 2006 sur la protection des travailleurs vulnérables (agences de placement)

Mr. Dhillon moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 161,

An Act respecting employment agencies / Projet de loi 161, Loi concernant les agences de placement.

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

Mr. Vic Dhillon (Brampton West–Mississauga): I rise today to discuss a matter that is very near and dear to me, as it affects many people in my riding and, as I’ve learned, in Ontario as well.

I want to begin, first of all, by thanking Mr. Ravinder Pannu, who is the owner of the Sur Sagar Radio program. It’s the only 24-hour Punjabi channel in Ontario. He’s doing a wonderful job. He’s taken on many issues in the Indian community which in turn have helped the community. He’s also taken this issue on and he’s provided me a great amount of assistance. As a matter of fact, a couple of weeks ago I went on the show and my bill was the topic of the show. We got many, many calls. I’m sure if we had gone on for another hour or two, the calls would have kept coming. Again, I want to thank Mr. Pannu, who is a pioneer of broadcasting in the Sikh community, the Indian community.

As I begin debate on my private member’s bill, Bill 161, Protecting Vulnerable Workers Act (Employment Agencies), I hope I can count on members’ support, as it affects some of the most vulnerable in our society: women, immigrants and visible minorities. They’re excessively represented in the lowest-paying and in the most insecure forms of work. I believe this bill would help provide much-needed oversight in this, as of the present, unregulated industry.

The purpose of the bill is to establish a licensing scheme for the control and regulation of businesses that operate as employment agencies. An employment agency means both businesses that bring together employees seeking jobs and potential employers, and temporary help agencies that contract out persons to organizations.

Bill 161 would set out requirements for employment agencies to obtain an operating licence from the Ministry of Labour. A licence may be refused if the company’s past conduct suggests that the company will not carry on its business in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity or if there’s some question about the financial viability of the company.

There’s currently no legislation specific to employment agencies, as they are subject to regulations that apply to any business operating in Ontario. While there used to be legislation specific to employment agencies in the past—the Employment Agencies Act, 1990—it was repealed by the Employment Standards Act, 2000. Reasons for its repeal are outlined in the Ministry of Labour’s 2000 consultation paper Time for Change: Ontario’s Employment Standards Legislation. I quote from the recommendations:

“The Employment Agencies Act was enacted to prevent the exploitation of individuals seeking jobs.”

I continue the same quote: “The Ministry of Labour has rarely received complaints under the EAA.

“Changes in this industry, such as the shift toward greater use of the Internet to assist in job searches, and the enactment of legislation to address discrimination, have largely eliminated the need for this act.

“Accordingly, the government intends to repeal the Employment Agencies Act.”

The ministry at that time may not have received complaints, but I certainly have, and many of them. Over the past several years I’ve received many complaints of fraudulent, fly-by-night employment agencies and situations where employees are not paid for work, wages are below the legal minimum wage, there’s no public holiday pay, no overtime pay, and their health and safety are jeopardized.

It is difficult to estimate the size of the temporary agency workforce, but there is an estimate of about 1,300 employment agencies that operate in Ontario, and the size of this industry continues to grow. Moreover, an increasing number of employers use temporary agency workers on a long-term basis. It is absolutely imperative that Ontario get back into the business of regulating this industry.

Many provinces, such as Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, and many US jurisdictions, including California, Maryland, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Massachusetts and New York, have detailed laws on the books that strictly regulate employment agencies.

The law was adopted many years ago to curb abuses associated with temporary job placement firms. The approach we have now is a complaints-based system through the Ministry of Labour. This issue is one of the most important to me and my riding. In light of this, shortly after becoming an MPP I attended my first cabinet committee meeting, which involved the Ministry of Labour. I brought this issue up immediately with a person named Adam McDonald, who is employed by the ministry. I wanted to do something about the abuse that’s being suffered by my constituents and many other people in Ontario.

Again, I received a lot of complaints. As evidence of this, as I stated before, I went on a live TV call-in show, and the calls were flooding in. I’m sure that we could have gone on for several hours after the show to hear about the horror stories that people had to tell as a result of the questionable practices of these fly-by-night, fraudulent employment agencies.

As recently as two nights ago I met Steve Webster, who lives in a town near Windsor. He told me of people being brought in as temp help from the GTA who were working on farms. The conditions, the circumstances that he described to me, were simply horrendous. People were being asked to work long hours, being paid as little as $4 an hour. This is simply not acceptable. This goes beyond providing somebody a minimum wage and beyond employment standards, the rules and regulations. We have to really think about what this means for Ontario and Canada. Is this what we want to portray to the world about who we are?

We always complain about child labour and other issues in China and other countries. We always complain about that. I think it’s a really important issue that needs to be looked into further than just the rules. Just to actually see people working in these farms, in those conditions, for one second, is quite disturbing. Most of these people are seniors, and they’re being asked to work long hours with no health benefits, which seniors need as they grow older.

Newcomers come to this country for an opportunity. Do we want to start turning away people because of stories that might come out of this type of situation? People don’t want to come to Canada to work in the type of conditions that they left in their own countries. Most often, vulnerable workers are not aware of where they can turn to to make a grievance because they’re so fearful of the repercussions if they do so. Again I state that Ontario should get back into regulating the industry.

That all being said, employment agencies that follow the Employment Standards Act do play a useful role in our economy. So the good agencies do warrant consideration. They’re doing a great job.

I want to quote from Ms. Sylvie Hyndman, the co-owner of Dynamic Employment Services Inc. I think she made a really good point. This industry “has diluted a valuable industry, an industry that is more than ready and capable of providing a value-adding service to both clients and candidates in need. It is with great anticipation that myself as an employment service owner would welcome some form of regulation.”

In the end, I just want to thank the ministry. They have been doing a great deal of good work, and I thank everyone else who has helped with this. I certainly hope that I can count on everyone’s support.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I’m pleased to participate in this debate. At the outset, I would say that I will be supporting this bill because I do believe that there’s an important consumer protection element contained in the bill. I also would say to the member that, in reading the bill, I’m disappointed that there is not more in the bill to speak to consequences and empowering the government of Ontario to move with some serious consequences for infractions.

Essentially what we’re talking about here is a fraud that is being perpetrated on the most vulnerable in our society. Often, as the member indicated, it’s newcomers that we’re talking about who come to this country as immigrants. They may well be very well qualified, but are having a difficult time accessing the job market, so they see often in agencies like this a way or a promise to bridge that gap between searching and finding a job, and often are willing to even put significant dollars on the table in the hopes of getting that much-needed job.

In the process now, we’re conducting hearings on Bill 124, which the government has brought forward. It deals with the issue of providing better access to newcomers to this province to the regulatory professions. We will, of course, be supporting that bill—the PC caucus will. We’re in the process of providing and advancing some amendments that we believe would have improved the bill.

It’s unfortunate that the government, to this point in time—we’re going into the second day of clause-by-clause hearings and not one of our amendments has been accepted by the government, which is really very unfortunate and speaks to the lack of democratic process in this place. But that’s a debate for another time.

I want to speak specifically to Mr. Dhillon’s bill. One of the reasons that I am supporting this is because, as a member of the Legislature, I too have had examples in my constituency of incredible hardship that is endured by people as a result of their dealings with some of these employment agencies. It’s not just labourers, and it’s not just people who are at the entry level of jobs who are finding this. In this particular case that I’m going to share with my colleagues, this involved an individual who is highly qualified, is a newcomer—

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins–James Bay): —tell people what to do. Let them do what they want.

Mr. Klees: Speaker, if you would ask the member to kindly keep his words to himself—

Mr. Bisson: I will.

Mr. Klees: —because I will respect him when it’s time for him to speak.

Mr. Bisson: I apologize.

Mr. Klees: Thank you.

I am going to share with you an example from my constituency; in this particular case, Mr. Janevski, who met with me on behalf of his wife, Mrs. Marijana Janevski, regarding her experience with an employment assistance agency. I am going to read into the record the name of the agency because I think it’s important that people know who is, and has been, dealing in this province and is not dealing in a straightforward manner with the public. The name of the agency is Bernard Haldane Associates. Mrs. Janevski paid $4,900, plus GST, to this company for services that they said would guarantee her a job.

They said, they represented to this woman, that for $4,900, plus GST, they would assist in the preparation of a CV, they would access certain potential employers who, they represented, aren’t in the full job market. This is another approach that many of these agencies take. They’ll say, “We’re so well connected; 80% of the real job market is never posted, and, because of our relationship with these employers, we can gain access to those people and make the introductions.”

This individual was so convinced by their story that she paid them the $4,900. To this day, she has yet to get an interview. Not only that, but the company is no longer in business.

Here is the problem—and this is something for the Ministry of Consumer Affairs in this government. After dealing with this, I contacted the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Business Services on her behalf. I said, “Look, this is fraudulent. This is a time for government to step in. Let’s get after these people.” I received a letter back from Minister Watson at the time, acknowledging my inquiry and indicating that he has asked the manager in the consumer business service bureau to look into the complaint file.

Here’s the problem: That’s where it ended, because the next contact that we had with the ministry of consumer services was: “Well, the company has now gone out of business. Because the owners of the company don’t live in Ontario, they are from the US, it’s very difficult to do anything about it.” Essentially, what happened was that they closed the books on it. So now we have a resident of Ontario defrauded, and our ministry tells us we can’t do anything about it.

Here’s the other problem: These people resurface time and time again under different corporate structures. I did some research, and it turned out that this company has had similar experiences in numerous states in the United States; that they have lawsuits filed against them in numerous jurisdictions; that they keep popping up, being reincarnated in different forms. I put the question to the ministry here in Ontario to say, “Look, when a company applies for letters of incorporation here, do we not look into whether or not the principals of the company have a track record of fraud?

Do we not deny people to incorporate in the province of Ontario if there is an evident track record?” Do you know what the answer is? “No, we don’t. It would be too costly to do that, and we’re going to presume that most people are honest.”

Well, the fact of the matter is that I believe the ministry of business services has a responsibility to ensure that business is being done in this province in a way that is not going to defraud—how can we simply blindly say, “Go ahead and open up a corporation so you can defraud Ontario citizens”? That doesn’t make any sense.

And so I am supporting this bill, because on the one hand I believe that, yes, we do need to have some standards in place. There should be regulations. I am concerned that the bill has not gone far enough. I think there’s much more that needs to be done. I would like to see this bill then go into committee so we can deal with those issues and have some witnesses come forward on the record.

Mr. Dhillon talked about a number of people that he spoke to on the air, in terms of sharing their concerns. I would love nothing better than to have this bill in committee. Let’s travel with that committee and let’s allow people to come forward and tell us about their experiences, and let’s get some of the names of these agencies on the record. Let’s embarrass them into doing business the right way, because today there are no consequences.

I will be supporting this. I look forward to the rest of the debate. In the final analysis, it is in the interest of protecting very innocent people whose only crime is that they are looking for gainful employment, and we as a Legislature should be doing everything we can to protect them.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale–High Park): It’s my pleasure and privilege to speak about this bill, first and foremost because I used to own a consulting firm. I worked for many years in the employment agency business, and then started my own employment agency and consulting firm, and dealt with many of the major corporations in the city. I did so, I feel, on behalf of those who came and registered with us.

First and foremost, I want to say that there are many, many employment agencies in the city that operate entirely ethically. In fact, back in the late 1980s when I was in business, I paid $10 an hour, minimum wage, to all of my contract employees. I would like to see the government support that today. Here we are, almost 2007. So I will support this bill.

What do I think about this bill? I think it is a tiny step where a great leap is required, an absolutely tiny step where a great leap is required. Why would I say that? Well, first of all, I would say that because there are no teeth to this bill. This is really just a bill calling for the licensing of an industry. Well, we license all sorts of industries. What does it actually mean? It doesn’t mean much if there are no teeth, if there is no enforcement and there is no money behind the enforcement put alongside this bill.

When I hear the story that was described by Mr. Klees, I wonder how this bill would help as it currently stands, how it would help that individual who was taken for $4,900. Well, the answer is that it probably wouldn’t help her much at all, because there is no money, there is no enforcement, and there is no way she could ever even begin to attempt to get that money back.

I want to step back for a minute, though, and look at the background and a little bit of what’s led up to this bill, because I think it is extremely important. I turn to the Star here, which did a major piece about what they call “second-class” workers, workers in the temporary field. They said—and this is an

article going back to October 14—that “about 13%—or close to 1.7 million—of Canadian workers are temporary, performing contract, seasonal, casual or agency work. But

whereas one in 10 new hires was a temporary worker in 1989”—when I was in business—“that ratio has risen to one in five, according to Statistics Canada.”

I continue on with the same

article where it talks about agencies: “Agencies range from large and corporate to small and fly-by-night. Several agencies that owed wages to workers were found by the Workers’ Action Centre”—a group that does tremendous work—“to be operating out of apartments and basements.” These are businesses operating out of apartments and basements. We should be outraged by this.

It goes on to say, “The labour ministry receives 15,000 to 20,000 employment standards complaints each year, but Peters said the Liberal government is determined to reduce that by targeting bad employers, including temp agencies.” How does it do that? It does that by employing, “144 employment standards inspectors, 20 of whom are on a ... team targeting 2,500 Ontario firms last year....”

Just to give you an indication of how minuscule that response is, again I go to the Star, an editorial this time on Wednesday, the 18th. It says here, “While the McGuinty government has sensibly increased random inspections and prosecutions.... Every year, fewer than 1% of workplaces are inspected.” Now, with that kind of track record, how can we possibly expect that anyone who has a complaint about their treatment by an agency—or an employer, for that matter—can ever get justice and their just day? Certainly, unless there are teeth in this bill again it will do very little if nothing at all to address that.

Then we look at the broader picture, if we kind of draw the lens back and look at the big picture, against which this bill is set. We’re talking here about Bill 161 that’s going to license employment agencies. This is a government bringing in this bill, albeit a private member’s bill—a member of the majority government—that will not raise the minimum wage to a living wage. That’s the poverty line; that’s $10 an hour. That means that many women, for example, who are the heads of households and who are single parents can’t afford to go to work at all. They cannot afford to go to work. They’ll lose drug benefits.

You heard Mr. Dhillon speak about the lack of benefits that most temporary workers get. These women won’t be allowed to get those drug benefits if they go back to work at all, whether through an agency or permanently. They’ll lose money and, of course, their children will have to go into day care, questionable day care, perhaps, because they can’t afford the best of day care. So here, this is the background against which we set this bill, that people working at minimum wage can’t pay the rent and feed their children. That’s number one.

This bill is set against a background of this government where only 30% of all of our labour force is covered by employment insurance. That’s the background against which this bill is set—only 30%. We should be outraged and ashamed at that. I know it’s federal, but we should be doing everything in our power to change that ratio. That’s appalling.

Again, this bill is set against a background of other temporary and contract workers. I think here of our brothers and sisters in OPSEU who are currently engaged in a huge struggle to get contract teachers in community colleges and other places covered by union legislation. It’s against the law for part-time workers in colleges to be part of unions. That’s the background against which this bill is set. So when I say baby step, I’m talking a very tiny, tiny baby step.

My husband works at a community college. He’s a contract worker. I hope he’s covered by a $10-an-hour minimum wage because right now at home he’s marking dozens and dozens of papers. He teaches five courses. And, do you know what? He doesn’t make nearly as much as a full-time worker, even though he works full-time. This is a huge, black mark against this government. If this government was really concerned about the rights of temporary and part-time workers, it would be doing something about that.

These are people with doctorates, these are people with masters, and they’re working for government-run, supposedly, community colleges etc., where, again, they’re not really making a fair wage, not even close. That has nothing to do with employment agencies whatsoever. That is directly something that this government could do, it could make a move on. I know my colleague Mr. Marchese has a bill before the House dealing with that situation right now.

Again, this bill is set against a background where we don’t have status-of-the-artist legislation. I heard some discussion coming from Mr. Dhillon about children. With no status-of-the-artist legislation, artists, anyone who’s working in the arts, are some of the poorest people in our community, with an average salary of around $26,000 to $27,000 a year, many of whom are going to lose their jobs because there’s no income averaging for them. If they have a good year, the next year the government taxes them based on last year—no status-of-the-artist legislation, and, in that, no child protection act at all about children who work in the arts.

This bill, this baby step, aimed at one small sliver of the employment spectrum does nothing about the rights of children who work in the arts, does nothing about the rights of artists who work in the arts, does nothing for that at all. When we take out all of these groups of people and look at this small, little baby step, all it does, even for employment agencies, is expect them to get a licence.

When I opened my agency, I had to get a licence too. Everybody who opens a business has to get a licence. What does it mean in reality? It means probably about as much as the paper it’s written on. It means nothing. What does it mean? Nothing.

Again, and I go back to the original point, there are no teeth. There’s no enforcement in this bill. There’s no way, shape or form to this bill that will actually do anything that we hope for. The concerns we heard from Mr. Dhillon and the concerns of Mr. Klees will do nothing to address any of those concerns if we pass this bill.

I’ll support the bill. We’ll support the bill as New Democrats because even a baby step is better than no step at all. But boy oh boy, when we get to committee, wouldn’t we like to see—how many pages in this bill? Six pages. It should be a bill of about 60 pages. It should be a bill that covers the works of artists. It should be a bill that covers the rights to protection of children. It should be a bill that supports those who are not covered by employment insurance or health benefits. It should be a bill to cover part-time labourers in our community colleges, a bill that OPSEU would like to see passed.

It should be a bill that brings into place a $10-an-hour living wage—the poverty line. That’s what this bill should do, and that’s not what this bill does.

Mr. David Zimmer (Willowdale): I’m happy to support this private member’s bill. I thought what I would do is take a few minutes and try and put a human face on just what we’re talking about, because we’ve had statistics and so on and have some theoretical appreciation of what the bill is designed to do.

I’m quoting from an

article that appeared in the Toronto Star, Saturday, October 14, 2006, by Rita Daly. I want to read parts of it into the record because I think it puts a human face on this problem and, at the end of the day, we have to remind ourselves that there are human beings, human faces, men and women behind this issue

I’m quoting from Rita Daly’s article:

“To understand the ‘temp’ industry today is to hear the story of eight Somali women whose experience has left them without jobs, references and, in their estimation, much to fear.

“Five days a week—some for months, others for as long as two years—they clocked into work at the UPS package delivery plant off Jane St. in the north end of the city. Their jobs involved standing for hours high on a platform flipping boxes on a conveyor belt.

“It was mundane work. But worse, it was work that denied them job security, basic employment rights and branded them second-class compared with permanently employed co-workers performing similar tasks on the warehouse floor.

“Considered fringe labour for decades, so-called temps have become the nation’s homegrown version of offshore labour. Temporary workers are rapidly replacing permanent workers in almost every sector, often through employment agencies that pay up to 40% less than permanent wages, offer few benefits and make a profit marketing labour to factories, warehouses, retail outlets, nursing homes and offices throughout the country.

“Currently about 13%—or close to 1.7 million—of Canadian workers are temporary, performing contract, seasonal, casual or agency work. But

whereas one in 10 new hires was a temporary worker in 1989, that ratio has now risen to one in five, according to Statistics Canada.

“Temporary agencies have flourished as companies opt to hire cheaper labour from an unregulated industry and under what critics call outdated employment standards legislation. Temp agencies say their biggest challenge is trying to pay workers a decent wage when client companies don’t want to”—or won’t—“bear the burden of higher costs.

“The Somali women worked 22 hours a week at the United Postal Service plant. But their employer was actually a large North American employment agency called Spherion. In a business arrangement with UPS, Spherion Canada placed temporary workers in the plant and paid their wages.

“The women earned about $1 an hour less than other unskilled unionized package handlers in the plant. They received no statutory holiday pay. And there was no opportunity for them to benefit from UPS health, dental and pension benefits.

“Last summer, they were abruptly let go, allegedly due to a lack of safety over their traditional Muslim attire while on the job. Up until then, the women say they wore their ankle-length skirts without it being a problem. But after a union drive resulted in the company hiring them on permanently, UPS told them they needed to roll up their skirts for safety reasons, they said in an interview.

“After telling company officials that, because of religious reasons, they could not do so, they were let go.

“‘Only when the women were being hired on as permanent workers did UPS then start to look at issues of health and safety.’” That was according to an employee of the Workers’ Action Centre, a grassroots advocacy centre that has taken an interest in protecting the rights of temps.

“The women were devastated.” They claimed that “neither UPS nor Spherion gave them any health or safety training. And, as other temp workers typically find, they received no termination pay.”

I just wanted to highlight that, because that’s an example of a vulnerable group that the member opposite’s private member’s bill is trying to address. I think this Legislature, all of us here, owes a duty to protect these kinds of temp workers. That’s what the legislation is designed to do. I’m happy to support it.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton–Victoria–Brock): I appreciate this opportunity to join in on the private members’ business, Bill 161, brought forward by the member from Brampton West–Mississauga. It’s

An Act respecting employment agencies, which is licensing employment agencies. I’ve listened to all the comments. We all represent very different ridings and have very different problems within them, and the member from Brampton West–Mississauga has brought this to our attention. He has heard a lot in his riding.

I represent the predominantly rural riding of Halliburton–Victoria–Brock, with agriculture being the third-largest employer. As many of you in the room know, it’s seasonal, in a sense, as we need more employees within that—when the sun shines, you have to make hay, as they say. That’s when the jobs come. We have within that riding 9,600 full-time jobs connected with the agriculture sector but we have 5,800 part-time and seasonal jobs.

Another large industry in my riding is tourism. In Haliburton county alone, our population goes from 16,000 to 40,000 during that peak tourism time. So we have a lot of fluctuations and need temporary employment for those times of year.

When we listen to the stories of the new immigrants coming to the country, wanting to find employment, and the difficulties and challenges, and the advantage taken of them by some of these agencies, we want to bring in legislation that certainly can give them more protections. So the principle of the bill is very good and I support it, because we’ve heard the stories, from the newspapers and from members, of the fly-by-night operations that can get involved.

There are certainly some concerns in the bill. I know the member from Parkdale–High Park has brought forward, “Where are the teeth? How are we going to do this?” That’s why I think we need to send this through to committee, because we have to hear from these people. It would be a great education for all of us to hear from both the agencies that are set up, that are legitimate, and from the employees who are being taken advantage of.

The bill, as I say, as it currently exists, is another layer of bureaucracy. How can we implement the principle that this bill contains? How can we implement it? Could we simply piggyback it with the Ministry of Labour’s already existing employment standards acts? We’ve talked about professionally run, ethically based agencies that could certainly be considered as best practices. Can we learn from them? Let’s not reinvent the wheel. Let’s make things better.

There should be more in the legislation to ensure that responsibility for this act does not fall on the backs of municipalities. What roles do they play within that?

Section 3 of the bill mentions items such as the fees, forms required, and prescribed securities for agencies. The bill in sections 13, 14 and 15 further discusses those, but leaves a lot to be determined by the Ministry of Labour at the time.

Like I said, we agree with the bill. We have details that we need to iron out, and that’s the purpose of sending this to committee, because we do have to protect vulnerable workers at all levels, and I mentioned the various ridings that we all represent and the examples from each of them. The regulation of the employment agencies needs to be established and balanced with what’s required by businesses and industries that use them.

I commend the member for bringing this bill forward: baby steps, as they say. It’s a start. As in politics, legislation sometimes doesn’t move as fast as we want, and other times it moves too fast for us. But at least this is taking us a step forward. We need to protect the interests of vulnerable people.

We have employment peaks in different areas of our ridings, and there are different countries that come forward—the very real stories that were brought forward today by some of the members and that have been written up in the newspapers.

I think this bill is timely. It is a private member’s bill brought forward by a government member, so it’s up to the government when this is going to be sent to committee. It’s in their hands now, and I support the bill.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): The member from Brampton West–Mississauga has introduced Bill 161 protecting vulnerable workers, the agency act. Mr. Dhillon indicates, in fact, that we’re not very good right now at protecting vulnerable workers. He indicates that there are many provinces that are actually doing a better job. The provinces of Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Yukon, and even the Northwest Territories have legislation in place that is doing a better job, and that’s why he’s identified this as a hole that needs to be filled.

He indicates that California, Maryland, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York and other jurisdictions have similar legislation already on the books. We did, but there were changes made, probably as an oversight.

We’re right now ready to vote on Bill 161. I’m sure, from what I’m hearing from all parties, that Mr. Dhillon’s bill will be successful today. So I want to say to you, congratulations. It’s a great step in the right direction. We will support this.

Almost every Saturday, I want you to know, I’m in my constituency office on the corner of Davenport and Dufferin. At 9 o’clock in the morning you’ll see me there. I would say that twice a month at least two people come to complain to me about the kinds of issues we’re debating today: inadequacies, unfairness, unjust treatment in terms of employment agencies.

One person came in and she said to me, “I just paid what’s called a placement fee in order to get a job.” A placement fee means that if you want to be considered for employment, you’ve got to pay ahead before you even get paid. What kind of employment agency asks you for money up front?

I was shocked today to hear an even bigger price from the member from Oak Ridges, who said that there was a tremendous amount of money wanted; he talked about over $5,000. Now, he said $4,900, and if you added GST that comes to over $5,000. Imagine paying over $5,000 before you can get employment, before you get a first paycheque. This kind of a situation cannot persist. Consequently, we’re certainly in favour of filling this hole today with Bill 161.

Another person comes in and he says it to me, “I have to pay what’s called a registration fee.” That was in the amount of $120. A registration fee means you have to register before you can get employment and pay money upfront before you can get employment. Wow. I wonder how many of us would pay money upfront before we get a job as an MPP. Wait a minute—

Interjection.

Mr. Ruprecht: I suppose we all paid money upfront. Well, no. The NDP and the Conservatives are getting paid before they get the job, because they get support from the party, and the Liberals probably don’t. I never got any support from my party, but I know that you did and I know that you did. In any case, let’s not talk about that.

Another person comes in and she says to me—this is very important—“I was not paid for the last two weeks before this company went bankrupt, and I want to be compensated.” There was some talk here earlier saying that the ministry is not doing a good job. I want to tell you, I differ on this analysis. I have a letter here from Minister Peters, who is the Minister of Labour. He says, “Our government is taking a strong, proactive approach to protecting the rights of temporary ... workers. We’re committed to ensuring these rights, and believe the most effective way of protecting temporary workers is to enforce our laws....”

Just two quick points: “We’ve made a big difference”—yes. “We have set and surpassed targets. Between 2003 and 2004, there were only 151 proactive inspections.” In 2004 to 2005, guess how many? Our team, he says, “conducted 2,355 proactive inspections”—not bad. “Since 2004, we helped recover $3.2 million in wages....”

Thank you, Mr. Peters, and congratulations to the member from Brampton West-Mississauga for Bill 161.

Mr. Bisson: I’m going to support this bill, in the sense that it’s a step in the right direction. But my problem is, I read the bill and all it really does is say that employment agencies are going to have to have a licence. It doesn’t do anything about making sure that the Employment Standards Act is followed. It doesn’t do anything about prescribing what the employment agency can and can’t do when it comes to how they treat the temporary employees who are getting jobs through their agency. It doesn’t deal with anything having to do with the fees that are charged. There is a whole litany of issues that aren’t dealt with.

I want to put on the record upfront that we’re going to give this bill support at second reading on condition that should it ever actually get to a committee—well, it will get to a committee if it passes this House—that is going to deal with it, we need to take a look at a whole bunch of other issues. I think there are certain practices—not with all, because there are some good employment agencies out there that do good work and treat the people that they work with fairly, but there are a lot of examples where they don’t.

The member across the way talked about people having to pay upfront fees when it comes to being able to even get the job, and sometimes those fees are quite heavy. There are others, in most cases, where the employee is not paid directly by the employer they’re going to work for but rather by the agency that got them the work. Are there situations where people are having deducted off of their paycheque some sort of administrative fee or whatever it might be, as far as the employment agency basically skimming off the top of the wages money that should actually be going to the employees?

You’ve got to look at all of those issues. To say that this bill is monumental in moving something forward I think is just a bit beyond the pale.

I also want to put on the record—and this is somewhat related—something that came to my attention recently from Mike Aiken from Thunder Bay. If you can allow me to digress a little bit, he wrote of the fine work that the Kinsmen and Kinettes have been doing for years when it comes to dealing with cystic fibrosis. He sent an e-mail in, and I wanted an opportunity somewhere in the debate to raise this.

He pointed out that in 1963 Dr. Crozier, the director of the CF clinic at the Hospital for Sick Children, had gotten together with Bill Skelly, just by a chance meeting at one point. Through that conversation, Bill Skelly, through his particular Kinsmen organization, started championing the issue of cystic fibrosis. As a result, the Kinsmen have gone far and beyond to become the champions of cystic fibrosis. Now, some 40 years later, they’ve managed to raise $32 million for that particular cause. I just want to say to them, that is work really well done.

As to how it relates to this debate, I would just say that many of the people within organizations such as the Kinsmen and others may know somebody who is actually involved through an employment agency, and I want to make sure that whatever we do with this bill, we end up doing what is right.

The other point that I want to raise very quickly is that in this particular bill there is really no enforcement mechanism other than an enforcement mechanism to make sure that there is a licence posted and that the operator has a current licence. Well, the licence has no requirements to it. So again I go back and say to the member, Mr.

Dhillon, who brings this bill forward, it’s great to have a licence, but it’s a little bit akin to all of a sudden saying that we’re going to issue somebody a driver’s licence but at the end of the day there’s no requirement as to what the driver needs to know when it comes to training to be able to get that licence in the first place and then having to follow the rules of the road. You don’t just issue a licence in isolation of everything else; you’ve got to make sure that in the end there is some rhyme or reason as to how those organizations have to work and what rules they have to follow.

Employment agencies are becoming more and more a big part of the economy, not only in Ontario, I would argue, but across North America and elsewhere. We need to make sure that workers who work through employment agencies are protected against some of the bad practices that we know occur now. We need to make sure that those who are out there legitimately trying to do the right thing are regulated in some way to make sure that there is confidence in the system, unlike, unfortunately, what we see at times now.

Again, I want to say that we need to make sure that workers are properly protected through this particular bill. We will give this bill support at second reading, with the understanding that when it gets to committee, if it does get to committee and it’s dealt with, at the end of the day we need to make some amendments to make sure that there is enforcement, make sure that there are standards and make sure that we properly set up this bill to do what the member is trying to do.

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London–Fanshawe): First, I want to stand up this morning to congratulate my colleague from Brampton West–Mississauga for bringing such an important issue to this House. Temporary agencies across the province of Ontario have been around for many years, and I know that some of them do an excellent job. But some others don’t do any job; as a matter of fact, they mess with the lives of many, many different workers who are badly looking for jobs. They want to work, and they cannot find a job on their own.

They go to those agencies, and they give them a job at almost 40% less than what they’re supposed to earn in the regular time and regular places. It’s a very important bill, a very important issue. We should be supporting it, and we should talk about it many different times.

I was happy to see both opposition parties supporting and talking about this bill. I know every party talks from a different point of view, and they don’t think it’s going far enough, but as a matter of fact, it’s a very important step toward a bigger step. When we go into the details of this bill, we can fill it up and make it strong and able to serve the people of Ontario.

I’m honoured and privileged today, and especially yesterday when we were debating Bill 124, fair access to regulated professions in the province of Ontario, to see the support of the people of Ontario for our bill and how much our government pays attention to the people who come to this province from different parts of the globe, gives them the ability to utilize their skills and their potential, to help us continue building this province of Ontario. This is our approach in this province: to assist everyone who wants to be an Ontarian, female and male, from wherever, to get a good job and fair treatment in this province.

I heard the member for Oak Ridges talking about this bill, and also the member for Parkdale–High Park. She said, “Not strong enough; doesn’t mean anything.” As a matter of fact, I want to congratulate the Minister of Labour and also his assistants—my colleague here, Mario Racco—for the great job they do on behalf of all of us to make sure of safety and the regular and legal conduct by many employers in the province of Ontario—how they do their business on a daily basis, to make sure fairness and accountability are being applied on any site, in any work in the province of Ontario.

When our government got elected in 2003-04, we appointed more than 150 inspectors to make sure all of the jobs were being inspected and run according to the law and the legal process.

Also, he mentioned a name of the person who went to temporary employment agencies and after a while, he didn’t get the job or she didn’t get the job, and the agency went bankrupt, and the person who, from the United States—and he wrote to the minister of business and consumer affairs back then and didn’t get any answer.

I want to tell the member from across the way that our government invested more than $3.2 million in lost income for many people who have been defrauded by temporary agencies across the province of Ontario. This is an important issue for us. We don’t take it lightly. It’s important because we believe strongly that everyone who wants to work and contribute to this economy should be protected and should be looked after very well.

The member for Brampton West brought this issue before us here today to raise it. Hopefully, this bill will go to second stage and third stage and will be implemented to help the people of Ontario. I think it is important and it fits with our direction as a government that wants to protect anyone who wants to contribute to our economy.

Again, I want to congratulate the member, congratulate our Minister of Labour and congratulate our government, who paid attention to all of the details concerning all of the people of the province of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Dhillon, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Dhillon: First of all, I want to thank the members for Oak Ridges, Haliburton–Victoria–Brock, Parkdale–High Park, Davenport, Willowdale and London–Fanshawe for their contribution to Bill 161. The member for Parkdale–High Park raised some issues, and I just would want to briefly respond to those. Our ministry has done a lot in terms of hiring inspectors, and the inspections have been going up since we got elected in 2003.

Obviously, just as in a lot of things, there is a lot more work to do. This bill is part of it. This bill is part of improving the conditions that temp workers work in with employment agencies and temporary help agencies. There are a lot of legitimate employment agencies out there, ones we need, ones we need to look to in order to set examples for the other ones that are not so good. So again, I want to thank everybody.

The other point made by the member for Parkdale–High Park was about foreign-trained workers. I just want to mention briefly that we have made record-breaking investments in this area to create a level playing field for the educated new immigrants that come in so they can find jobs in their field, because it is important. These are a large segment of the people who get trapped by these new agencies, because they come into Canada, they need a job to provide for their family and oftentimes they have no choice but to accept a job they might not like or one that doesn’t pay them as they should get paid.

So once again, I want to thank everybody for contributing to my bill, and I hope that together we can make further progress.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members’ public business has expired.

Raw milk

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We’ll deal first with ballot item number 65, standing in the name of Mr. Murdoch.

Mr. Murdoch has moved private member’s notice of motion number 32. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say “aye.”

All those opposed, say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

We will call in the members after dealing with the next ballot item.

Protecting Vulnerable Workers Act (Employment Agencies), 2006 Loi de 2006 sur la protection des travailleurs vulnérables (agences de placement)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We will now deal with ballot item number 66, standing in the name of Mr. Dhillon.

Mr. Dhillon has moved second reading of Bill 161. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr. Vic Dhillon (Brampton West–Mississauga): Mr. Speaker, I’d like to refer that to the standing committee on general government.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

We will now call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

Raw milk

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Murdoch has moved private members’ notice of motion number 32. All those in favour, please stand and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Klees, Frank

Martiniuk, Gerry

Murdoch, Bill

Runciman, Robert W.

Wilson, Jim

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please stand and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Arthurs, Wayne

Bisson, Gilles

Broten, Laurel C.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Fonseca, Peter

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kwinter, Monte

Leal, Jeff

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Scott, Laurie

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Lisa Freedman): The ayes are 7; the nays are 35.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion defeated.

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 1208 to 1330.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe–Grey): This has been a terrible and devastating week for over 300 million insulin users worldwide who are alive today because of the work of Sir Frederick Banting. To everyone’s shock and dismay, the Ontario Historical Society has shown pure greed by selling to a developer the 100-acre farm where Sir Frederick performed some of his earliest experiments. Because of the inaction of this government, the birthplace of Sir Frederick Banting is on its way to becoming a subdivision. Dalton McGuinty and his Minister of Culture should be ashamed of themselves for failing to preserve the legacy of Dr. Banting.

Everyone except the Liberal government and the Ontario Historical Society has been working hard towards turning the property into a camp for diabetic youth and children, while this government chose to abdicate its responsibility to protect the historical significance of this property. Dalton McGuinty and his government have betrayed the trust of Sir Frederick Banting when they could have, at the stroke of a pen, saved this homestead and been international heroes. But they have failed miserably and let the whole world down.

I’ve introduced petitions containing tens of thousands of signatures in this House over the past two years and I’ve tabled a private member’s bill that could have saved this homestead. It’s time for every one of you in the Liberal caucus to stand up and tell Dalton McGuinty to get off the fence, get to work, and save the Banting homestead before it’s too late. The ball is in your court.

Hospital services

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Nothing changes, and in fact things are getting worse. That’s the best way to describe the ongoing crisis for patients, health care professionals and emergency room staff at the Sudbury Regional Hospital.

Yesterday, at least six surgeries were cancelled because there were no beds available at the hospital for recovering patients. Indeed, the night before, post-operative patients stayed in the recovery room all night because there was no bed for them to go to. In October, 15 surgeries were cancelled. Two weeks ago, two full operating days were lost, with 20 surgeries cancelled, because of the bed shortage. The cancellations yesterday were particularly frustrating for everyone, as two extra hours of operating time had been set aside for hip and knee replacements as per the government’s wait time strategy.

The bed shortage at the Sudbury Regional Hospital continues because patients who could be discharged have no community services or beds to go to. Yesterday, there were 92 alternate-level-of-care patients waiting for discharge. This is not new. In fact, this crisis has gone on for over two and a half years now, and the number of patients waiting in the hospital has grown over that time. Surgery cancellations are becoming more frequent, and backups in the emergency room—19 people on stretchers in the ER by yesterday afternoon—are getting worse too.

When will the McGuinty Liberal government finally deal with this crisis? When will a concentrated effort be made to solve this serious ongoing problem? How many more patients will be stuck in the hospital while surgeries are cancelled and patients are backlogged in the ER before a permanent solution is found?

Water quality

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey (Brampton Centre): This week I was extremely excited and proud to learn of a partnership between the Sheridan Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning and the region of Peel. In November, I learned that Peel and Sheridan began offering a water and waste water education program for municipal operators who work on waste distribution and waste water collection systems. The development of this program is a proactive response to our government’s passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act in December 2002. Justice O’Connor’s recommendations will protect human health through the control and regulation of drinking water systems and drinking water testing.

The Peel-Sheridan partnership is the first of its kind in this province and will set a new standard in training for programs in the water industry. This partnership will not only ensure that the region of Peel maintains its high quality of water purification and distribution but also will bear fruit elsewhere because they have held discussions with other municipalities to offer their learning and development programs to employees at their locations.

The signature of a great community is leadership, and I feel it’s very important that we acknowledge those in our community who lead by example. I commend and applaud the vision and foresight of all those at the Sheridan College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning and the region of Peel for creating a program that will set the standard for safe drinking water around this province.

Forest Industry

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound–Muskoka): It’s my sad duty to report that once again another mill will be closing permanently.

The Tembec mill in Smooth Rock Falls, idled in July, will shut down permanently, leaving more than 280 employees without jobs, this despite the Premier’s assurances that his northern energy rebate for large pulp and paper operations is just what the doctor ordered; this despite the Minister of Natural Resources’ proclamation that all the recommendations of his forestry sector council have been fulfilled; this despite the minister’s assurances that Ontario’s forestry sector got off virtually scot-free in relation to the US housing slump. How many more jobs will be lost before the McGuinty government takes action?

This government is only interested in parroting orchestrated quotes from forest companies that fear retaliation from this government. I have a few different quotes, like the executive who told the Globe and Mail, “The government’s response has been somewhat sporadic....

“‘What we don’t have is the grand master plan yet.... It’s taken a long time to get serious attention for this issue and for people to realize this isn’t just a cyclical swing.’”

Here is another quote, from the Composite Panel Association: “We are ... respectfully voicing our disappointment and astonishment that particleboard and medium-density fibreboard plants were not included in your electricity rebate program....

“We fail to understand that, given our similarities both in energy consumption, processes and competitiveness, why we are not a full beneficiary of the rebate program.”

Time and time again, the McGuinty government shows that it has no plan and no vision.

Murray Barkley

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont–Dundas–Charlottenburgh): It gives me pleasure to rise in the House today to recognize a great Ontarian, Murray Barkley.

Murray is a third-generation proprietor of Barkley’s Store in Avonmore, as well as the author of the recently published book titled Speaking of Avonmore: History, Heroes, Happenings and Humour in the Life of a (not very) Typical Ontario Village.

I was honoured to join with others from my riding of Stormont–Dundas–Charlottenburgh in the Avonmore community centre for the launch of Murray’s book. It is a collection of speeches and articles that affectionately capture the spirit and history of the community of Avonmore. The great character and characters of Avonmore come to life in Murray’s words, and readers quickly learn what makes Avonmore such a magical place in which to live.

Murray has not only written a book that captures the essence of Avonmore; he is donating $5 from the sale of each book sold before Christmas to the fundraising campaign to replace the Avonmore community centre. This is the sort of commitment to communities so prevalent in my riding and so ably embodied by Murray Barkley himself. It was Murray’s advocacy back in the 1980s and 1990s that kept the Avonmore post office, Roxmore Public School and the Avonmore Library from closing.

I am proud of the work Murray Barkley has done and of the way he continues to help preserve the essence of his community, while using his words to let people know how special Avonmore is in my riding of Stormont–Dundas–Charlottenburgh.

Government Spending

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie–Lincoln): One thing you can say about Dalton McGuinty is that he sure leads by example.

This week, the Auditor General’s report cited the wasteful and gluttonous spending of our taxpayer dollars. This week we have witnessed that many government agencies are closely following on the footsteps of Dalton McGuinty and his cabinet minister. This is the Premier who travels with the largest entourage of staffers, hangers-on and wannabes in the history of Ontario. Who can forget when they paid $800 to ship ice from Toronto down to Niagara and booked more hotel rooms, even more than McGuinty’s giant entourage?

This is a Premier who spent $6 million to drop the “C” from the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp., spent $120,000 to redesign the trillium and gave a $20-million raise to his Liberal appointees in various government agencies, boards and commissions, let alone all those ministers spending millions of dollars on hotel rooms for meetings when government space in Macdonald Block is sitting empty. No doubt, Dalton McGuinty is leading by example. Easy-money McGuinty is spending your money like it’s going out of style. To hear Dalton McGuinty say, “You’ve got to be careful with tax dollars”—oh, come on. Horse feathers.

Dalton McGuinty is simply saying, “Don’t do as I say; do as I do.” He’s the one with the helicopter and he’s the one setting the example.

Dana Robbins

Ms. Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): Today I want to celebrate a Hamilton champion. Dana Robbins was the editor-in-chief for the Hamilton Spectator and is leaving our wonderful city to accept a new position as the publisher of the Record of Waterloo region and the Guelph Mercury.

Dana has received many tributes for his distinguished work and is known as one of Canada’s brightest young editors. Hamilton is affectionately called a “large small town” where we feel we all know each other personally. In this instance, Hamiltonians have responded by sending e-mails, letters and gifts to Dana wishing him continued success.

He started his career at the Hamilton Spectator as an intern in 1982. He then went on to return as the Hamilton Spectator’s reporter in 1984 and was named editor-in-chief in the year 2000: 24 years of stellar service to Hamilton.

At a time when newspaper readership was said to be in steady decline, Dana Robbins took the challenge and in October 2003 took a six-section newspaper and changed it into four sections.

Recently, Mr. Robbins was a guest speaker at the 50th anniversary of Mission Services. He spoke elegantly and eloquently about each of our responsibilities to those in need. Michael Josephson wrote a piece entitled, “What Will Matter.” One line reads, “Strive to ensure that the outcomes of your actions have benefits that extend well beyond yourself.” Dana has achieved that lofty goal, and in 2005 he received the Excellence in Journalism Award, which is known as the most prestigious media honour. He is also recognized as being emotionally involved with Hamilton’s community, and initiated a poverty project.

Please wish Dana Robbins our very best success for the future.

Holiday season

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London–Fanshawe): I rise in this House today to speak about the wonderful holiday season which is fast approaching. As we all know, throughout December and January, Ontarians from many different ethnic and religious backgrounds will be celebrating special holidays with friends and loved ones. London welcomes people from 130 different countries who speak many different languages, and we practise every belief on earth and enjoy peace and tranquillity. That’s why we enjoy being Ontarians and Canadians.

I would like to take this time to wish each and every Ontarian across this great province a happy and safe holiday season and all the very best in the new year. Mr. Speaker, I will thank you, and I wish you and I wish all my colleagues in the House from both sides a happy season, and hopefully they’ll have a great and safe season.

Doctors’ services

Ms. Deborah Matthews (London North Centre): I rise today to talk about the extraordinary success the McGuinty government is having with regard to our commitment to have more doctors practising in Ontario. Our government took up the challenge that was left behind by the previous two governments and is aggressively addressing this serious lack of health care professionals in the province.

Under the leadership of George Smitherman, we’re working tirelessly to ensure that all communities across the province get the access to health care they deserve. Not only is the McGuinty government focused on initiatives that will see new spaces for medical students open up in Ontario—many in my riding—we’re also committed to helping foreign-trained health care professionals receive the accreditation they need to practise here. They have the skills, Ontarians have the need and the McGuinty government is making sure the two are put together for the benefit of everyone.

We’ve been able to go above and beyond projected targets this year by offering 218 new positions for training and assessments of international medical graduates. Ontario communities are seeing 750 new internationally trained medical graduates practising since 2003, and there are another 470 internationally trained medical graduates currently enrolled in training and assessment programs.

Unlike the members opposite, we want to invest in the health care of Ontarians, not strip away valuable resources and funding. We know there’s more to do, but we’re committed to ensuring—

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Thank you.

Report, Office of the Integrity Commissioner

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the report of the Integrity Commissioner made pursuant to the MPP Compensation Reform Act, 2001.

MOTIONS

Withdrawal of Bills

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I have the following motion. I move that the order for second reading of Bill 83,

An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act and the Coroners Act to better protect the children of Ontario, standing in the name of Mr. Jackson, be discharged and the bill be withdrawn; and

That the order referring Bill 96,

An Act to amend the Education Act, to the standing committee on regulations and private bills, standing in the name of Ms. Wynne, be discharged and the bill be withdrawn; and

That the order referring Bill 71,

An Act to promote the use of automated external heart defibrillators, to the standing committee on social policy, standing in the name of Mr. Crozier, be discharged and the bill be withdrawn.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Committee sittings

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I move that, in addition to its regularly scheduled meeting times, the standing committee on regulations and private bills be authorized to meet after routine proceedings this afternoon for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 124,

An Act to provide for fair registration practices in Ontario’s regulated professions.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, His Honour awaits.

His Honour the Lieutenant Governor entered the chamber and took his seat upon the throne.

Native youth

Hon. James K. Bartleman (Lieutenant Governor): Pray be seated.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, here assembled, has resolved to receive Your Honour’s gracious address.

Hon. Mr. Bartleman: Premier McGuinty, Mr. Tory, Mr. Hampton, members of the Legislative Assembly, I should like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to provide the Legislature with a story of hope before everyone departs for the holiday season.

In addition to their normal constitutional a