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

March 31, 2005

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2005-Mar-31 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 31 March 2005 Jeudi 31 mars 2005

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

SAFE NEEDLES SAVE LIVES ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR L'UTILISATION D'AIGUILLES SÛRES

POUR SAUVER DES VIES

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

SAFE NEEDLES SAVE LIVES ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR L'UTILISATION

D'AIGUILLES SÛRES

POUR SAUVER DES VIES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

OPP AUXILIARY

KITCHENER CHURCH OF GOD

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

KIDNEY HEALTH MONTH

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

GAMBLING

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

MUNICIPAL FIRE SERVICES

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC SAFETY

FOREST INDUSTRY

GOVERNMENT POLICIES

PUBLIC SAFETY

FOREST INDUSTRY

GREENBELT

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

OMA AGREEMENT

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

MUNICIPAL FINANCES /

FINANCES MUNICIPALES

INSTALLATIONS SCOLAIRES

PETITIONS

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

OPTOMETRISTS

GO TRANSIT TUNNEL

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

REFUNDABLE CONTAINERS

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

STUDENT SAFETY

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LAW ENFORCEMENT AND FORFEITED

PROPERTY MANAGEMENT STATUTE

LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'EXÉCUTION

DE LA LOI ET L'ADMINISTRATION

DES BIENS CONFISQUÉS

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I move that, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should continue to build upon and

strengthen initiatives to increase the effectiveness of measures by employers, professional regulatory bodies, and trade and professional associations to integrate the skills of internationally

trained professionals into workforces, trades and the professions in Ontario.

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

Mr. Delaney: I will be enjoying comments today from the members from Etobicoke-Lakeshore and Scarborough Centre.

Ontario is blessed in so many ways. We have natural resource riches in our forests, in the rocks beneath our province, in our fields and rivers, in our

beautiful, scenic environment with its four distinctive seasons, our peaceful and prosperous communities, our vibrant cities and our energetic people. But Ontario's wealth exists only because its

people have in abundance the energy, the skills, the vision and the work ethic to add value to the many facets of business and life in our province. Our people in Ontario come from all over the

world, more so today than ever before in our history.

In generations past, we Canadians have wrung our hands over the perceived brain drain of many of our best and brightest minds to other countries, especially the

United States. But in recent years, not only do our best minds stay increasingly in Ontario -- or at least in Canada -- but Ontario has become one of the world's magnets for the best and the

brightest of other nations, transforming Canada's brain drain into a brain gain.

How much of a magnet? Each year, some 120,000 immigrants come here to make Ontario their home. About 70% of adult immigrants are highly skilled, with

post-secondary education or training. But there is an ominous underside to the opportunities within Ontario for those who are trained and educated outside Canada. It exists in the form of a de

facto two-tier system in Ontario in which the range and variety of opportunity open to many men and women who are trained or who have worked outside Canada is closed to those who have gained their

experience beyond Canada's borders.

At the very least, this represents a waste of Ontario's most valuable resource, a resource that is more precious than the wood in our forests, the ore in our

ground, the livestock and crops on our farms or the manufactured goods from our industrial and commercial operations. None of these things are possible without the skills found in the brains of the

men and women in Ontario's workforce. With only 13 million of us in Ontario, we need every man and every woman capable of moving Ontario forward to have the opportunity to do just that. But sadly,

it is not so.

Some four years ago, I became aware of the inequities of opportunity facing Canadians educated, trained or experienced outside Canada in the living rooms of some

of our Ontario Pakistani community. I spoke with engineers, teachers, nurses, doctors, technologists and others with similar skills who all told versions of a similar story. It was that employers

in Ontario wanted skills earned in Ontario and experience gained in Ontario, or at least gained in Canada. It seemed incomprehensible to me that a doctor, for example, who might have been trained

in South Asia would find a human being any different here in Ontario than anyplace where he learned how to diagnose and treat people. It seemed unfair to me that a company might consider the skills

of a mining engineer who had learned to extract ore in South America to be inferior to someone who had done the same thing in Ontario.

I recall meeting with a group of doctors from the Middle East. Some had found work in Ontario and, not surprisingly, were doing very well. Others trained in the

practice of the very medicine that our province now finds in such high demand couldn't get their credentials or their experience recognized here. The dark humour at that meeting went as follows:

What's the safest place in Mississauga? Answer: In a taxi cab. Why? Because there's a very good chance your chauffeur is a doctor.

Our government heard this need clearly and it made a specific commitment during the 2003 election. I have read my petition, and so have many others in the House,

so many times that I imagine by now the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities must be able to lip sync it. But the government of Ontario has responded with specific and targeted

initiatives. This year, Ontario is investing $9.5 million to remove barriers that prevent new Canadians in Ontario from pursuing their trade or profession, and $12.5 million in 2005-06.

For the doctors I spoke of earlier, there is a new centralized assessment service called IMG Ontario that will double the opportunities available to

international medical graduates, from 90 to about 200. Ontario is also investing $1.7 million over three years in two pilot projects to help international medical graduates strengthen communication

with patients, improve their awareness of medicine in Ontario and assist those who are not working as physicians to use their skills in other areas of the health care sector.

Other specific initiatives will help internationally trained engineers, nurses and teachers. The government of Ontario has invested in a career bridge program to

connect GTA employers with skilled and experienced immigrants eager to gain Canadian work experience. Ontario is also delivering enhanced job-specific language training to more than 1,300

internationally trained individuals over two years.

Further, the government of Ontario is investing $5.8 million in 15 new projects to help more than 1,400 internationally trained individuals gain licensure,

certification and employment in a wide variety of professions and skilled trades. As well, at the government level, we are providing new career and employment preparation services for

internationally trained individuals through three agencies in Etobicoke, Mississauga and Brampton, and Ottawa.

But while the awareness of the skills within Ontario's newcomers is sinking in to our province's mainstream, it has not yet translated into enough action. And

action is needed not only to help alleviate the existing and upcoming shortages of skilled professionals in trades across Ontario, but to address the upcoming retirement of the baby boom

generation, the largest demographic bulge in North American history. The average age of most skilled workers in the building trades continues to inch toward 50 each year. Without certifying

foreign-trained construction workers, who will build the municipal infrastructure -- the roads, mass transit and other public facilities that all here agree that we need and need now -- not to

mention the many thousands of new homes in the leapfrog development that some in this chamber like to complain about?

We need the trades to step up and devote their energies and skills to training and certifying more new Canadians. And some trade unions have got the message. I

especially commend the Carpenters and Allied Workers for their state-of-the-art, brand new training facility funded entirely by a levy on the workers they represent so well.

We need professional bodies to step up and amend their bylaws and constitutions to remove the unfair, out-of-date, or simply discriminatory provisions that

debase or devalue experience or training gained outside Canada. We need them to establish reciprocity provisions and to recognize professional education from other countries, and in so doing to

provide access to certification of foreign-trained professionals that is fair, timely, transparent and cost-effective. I have seen too many bylaws and procedures that hide behind phrases like

"safety," when the net effect of the rules is to erect a barrier to entry.

We need organizations in the private and extended public sector -- the municipal, education, law enforcement, civil service and similar sectors -- to look for

the skill set needed and determine whether a candidate can do the job, will do job and will fit into the organization, without regard to where that candidate was educated, trained or worked before.

In some fields, where the skill set of specialized workers is the major driver of the need, this issue isn't often experienced: fields like information technology, biotechnology and the like. I say

that if our best and our brightest minds can make it in our most complex fields of work without regard to where they got their skills and experience, the same can be true in the operating theatre,

on the assembly line, in the professions and in the front office.

This resolution urges Ontarians to use a gift far more valuable than our natural resources and our scenery in building the organizations, the institutions, and

the buildings and other physical structures that comprise our Ontario. This resolution asks all Ontarians -- private sector, trades, professions and the public sector -- to hire the best minds they

can find. The intelligence, innovation, energy, inspiration and drive within the minds of internationally trained Ontarians will help any organization thrive in today's world. Tapping into that

vast domestic storehouse of brain power is cost-effective, non-polluting, socially responsible and also hard-nosed, good bottom-line business sense.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): I am pleased to join the debate on the motion that has been put forward by Mr. Delaney: "That, in

the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should continue to build upon and strengthen initiatives to increase the effectiveness of measures by employers, professional regulatory bodies,

and trade and professional associations to integrate the skills of internationally trained professionals into workforces, trades and the professions in Ontario."

I certainly would agree with the intent of this motion. Having come to this country myself as an immigrant with my parents -- my father was born in Austria and

my mother was born in Holland -- this has been a long-standing problem for individuals who have come from other parts of the world and settled in this great province of Ontario, in this great

country of Canada. There certainly is more that we need to continue to do to ensure that the skills and the abilities of those individuals are utilized to the fullest extent possible within our

province, because of course our province and our country have been built as a result of the influx of immigrants over the course of many, many years. The only thing changing at the present time is

where the immigrants are coming from to this country, but we certainly do live in a very blessed nation.

According to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, a statement was made in February 2003 that Ontario would receive 235,000 immigrants in that

year alone. So we can see that we continue to be a destination for immigrants and certainly the flood of immigrants is going to continue to grow. I think what is important in that number is that of

the 235,000 immigrants that had indicated they would come to Canada, approximately 60% will end up, and do end up, living in Ontario. It appears that Ontario continues to be the province of choice

when it comes to immigrants finding a place to begin building their lives in this country.

However, when people arrive in the province and they begin that search for a new job that will allow them to provide for themselves and for their family, and

provide them with the dignity of the job and the ability to bring home a paycheque at the end of each week, they often find that the skills that they have acquired are not recognized and are not

appreciated by those in the province, so they have extreme difficulties. In fact, seven out of 10 immigrants who looked for work reported difficulties in this process, and the most common reasons

that were given in facing difficulties were the following. The number one reason that new Canadians were given that there wasn't a job for them was because they lacked job experience. The second

reason for their not being able to obtain a job was that there was a problem with the transferability of their foreign qualifications or their experience. These, then, are two of the most common

reasons that immigrants find when they're looking for a job. They find it next to impossible sometimes to find a position that would recognize their education, their skills and their

experience.

So today in this province, and throughout Canada, we have thousands upon thousands of highly skilled, highly trained professionals who unfortunately cannot finds

jobs that suit their skill set. Instead, these immigrants are relegated to jobs that have nothing to do with the valuable education or the training they have received. I think that most of us in

this House, often, when we use taxicabs in the city of Toronto, do come across individuals who are highly trained professionals with degrees and experience from other countries, but they have been

unable to find a job in their chosen field. So there is a problem and we need to recognize it and to address it. Obviously, the government cannot do it alone and is going to have to rely upon

professional and trade organizations as well as the regulatory bodies and employers to assist them in making sure that these people can be integrated into the Ontario workforce.

Now, the problem doesn't stop. They're told they lack Canadian job experience and then they're told there are problems with the transferability of their

qualifications or their experience. But even when they do find a job, they still experience difficulties in receiving the full value of their skills. According to a paper from the Institute for

Research on Public Policy, immigrants educated abroad receive, on average, lower returns to the human capital they acquire abroad than their non-immigrant counterparts. The consequences, as the

paper identifies, are that, "These differences in returns adversely affect immigrants' incomes and hinder their integration into mainstream Canadian society." So there is more that needs to be

done.

I am happy to say that when our government was in office, we recognized that this was a problem and steps were taken.

One of things that we were able to do was to double the number of foreign doctors that were being assessed and trained each year to practise in Ontario. The

number went from 36 to 90 as part of our commitment to provide Ontarians with better access to doctors.

We also invested $15.5 million to develop bridge training programs to help immigrants re-enter the occupations in which they have trained and to employ their

skills more quickly in the Ontario economy.

In 2002, our government also announced a partnership with the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers that allows for internationally trained engineers the

work experience they need to apply their previous training and experience to meet Ontario standards.

As well, our government was responsible for setting up and investing in the Creating Access to Regulated Employment for nurses program, CARE. This program allows

for internationally trained nurses to gain the experience they need to practise in Ontario. It also allows for the removal of barriers that prevented internationally trained nurses from continuing

their careers in Ontario.

It was also our government, in 2002, that announced an eight-step program to assist internationally trained doctors to work in the province of Ontario. Along

with this eight-step program, our government announced $36.4 million in funding to support this program.

The Conservative government was also responsible for investing and assisting in the implementation of the international pharmacy graduate program, a partnership

between the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, the University of Toronto, and the Ontario College of Pharmacists. As a result, 21 internationally trained pharmacists graduated from

this program in 2002.

I am very pleased to say that it was as a result of the hard work and initiative of the then Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, Dianne Cunningham,

who was responsible for many of these initiatives. I am pleased that the Liberals are continuing to carry on with these initiatives and hopefully will continue to provide funding for these

programs.

In conclusion, I would simply like to indicate my support for the motion, and the need for us all to work collaboratively -- government, all parties, employers,

regulated bodies -- in order to do what we can to allow those who have trained elsewhere to have access to the jobs that recognize their prior education and their skills.

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): It will be very difficult not to support this resolution. It is innocuous and it's a friendly little

resolution that I am going to be supporting, obviously. But --

Interjection.

Mr. Marchese: Yes, I'm a friendly little guy.

But I think we need to talk about this in a much more serious way, because we have underutilized immigrants for so long that I consider it a national

disgrace.

The resolution says that we are going to build on things that other governments have done and we need to do that, and I agree. But we have done so little as

governments -- I include my own in 1990 -- that I am embarrassed to talk about this issue in terms of what we should have done, what previous governments should have done and what we need to do in

the future to deal with the underutilization of a cultural capital. It's there and it makes us look bad as governments, but, worse, for those immigrants who are suffering it, they have to deal with

the pain of not being able to break through the barriers that exist in all of our national institutions. So I am embarrassed by it, but I am equally, and more, hurt by the problem that it causes to

immigrants.

First of all to blame: the federal government. The federal government brings people in -- skilled people, trained people, highly educated people -- to then

abandon them to wherever they go and to whatever city they go, leaving them on their own to fend for themselves. How do we allow that? We, as a federal government, say we want skilled people to

come in. The assumption is that when they come in, they will find employment in their field. But when they come, they do not find employment in their field; they have to find employment in some

other place, where they are underutilized, looking for minimum wage jobs in order to be able to survive.

In the 1950s and 1960s, when many of us came, many of those south European immigrants had very little education. They have done well economically. Why? Because

the economy was growing and we, as a government, as a nation, needed non-skilled people, but people who really wanted to break their backs creating our cities, not just in Toronto but throughout

Canada. They did well.

Now the immigration requirements have changed, and we're looking for highly skilled people. And we bring them in, and we don't use them. Shouldn't we be saying

to those immigrants that we call into the country, "By the way, before you come, check this out. You may not find a job in your desired profession. Or if you are coming, these are the requirements

that are expected of you. So before you come, do not be disillusioned in the event that you do not find the job you want"? Or better and more proactive and positive, "Here is what we are going to

do to help you out."

We do so little to help them out, knowing full well -- based on what the member moving the resolution has said, based on what the other Conservative members

said, we are aware of the problems, each and every one of us, from all political parties. It's no different at the federal level. Every political party is aware of the problem. Yet we've done so

little to help them access the jobs that they so desperately need.

It's an interesting statistic, and I'm embarrassed by it. When people do find work -- that is, the immigrants -- the gap in what they are paid is widening. In

1980, newly arrived immigrant men were earning at a rate of 80% of that of their Canadian-born counterparts. By 1996, their earnings had dropped to 60% of their Canadian-born brethren. It's

incredible.

Mr. Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): Shameful.

Mr. Marchese: I believe it's shameful, and we allow that. Yes, we speak nicely of that and how greatly skilled they are and how much more we

need to do, but these people are suffering the problem more than I am, more than we are. I think more aggressive measures need to be taken. It's not enough to think or to say, "We are doing

enough." My view is that, as governments, we're not doing very much -- we're not -- and I included our own government in 1990 as a way of saying I share the blame, without saying to you, "You're

not doing enough." We have all not done enough. I think we have to grapple with it, be aggressive and break down the barriers. It is not enough to say that some unions are taking some good measures

or some other corporations here and there might be taking some good measures. To isolate one or two instances is not enough.

We as a government have incredible opportunities in every ministry that we have to allow for the many things that someone like Royson James identified in his

article, where he talks about mentorship. Many new immigrants require mentorship -- not all of the requirement is mentorship, but this is one of the issues -- where people need the assistance to be

able to guide them through a job within their specifications, within their skill, as a way of gaining the experience and knowledge that is required, so that if a job opening does happen, they would

be eligible to apply and they would have the knowledge, through a mentorship program, to be able to do that. Why aren't we doing that in all of our ministries? We can do that. We should be doing

more of that. We should be requiring every deputy minister in this province to do that. If we did, more and more of our immigrant people who come to this province would have the opportunities they

need to get gainful, meaningful and productive employment that is good for them and good for us.

It is estimated that we lose $4 billion to $6 billion because we do not use the cultural capital that we have. Mentorship programs are important. We understand

that Toronto City Summit Alliance and the Maytree Foundation have teamed up to create a mentorship program that is effective. That's good. It's a good example. Why don't we use that as a government

and expand on that?

He makes reference to internship programs, and he says as well that the City Summit Alliance has a wildly successful internship effort called Career Bridge. So

far, 180 recent immigrants have landed paid internships with major corporations like GM, TD Financial and Bell Canada. Why don't we build on that?

Why do we have to say to corporations, "Please do this; it's good for you"? Why don't we do it first, and by leading as a government, show the corporate sector

-- and unions, yes -- that they have an incredible role to play and that we can do it together? But we should be leading, not just simply saying to them, "You should do more," and allow this

voluntary measure, hopefully, to take hold as a way of being able to help people.

There is another issue raised in that article. They talk about cultural competency. This term is showing up more and more. It addresses a company's facility and

ease in absorbing, integrating, enhancing and using all the strengths and opportunities inherent in a workforce that reflects the population. It is important stuff. Some institutions, such as the

Toronto Community Housing Corp., do this because they understand that to absorb and to reflect the makeup of our city helps the institutions in ways that help all of us, not just them but help that

corporation and help the government. So some people are doing it, but we can show the way, in all of our ministries, as it relates to this issue of cultural competency.

Some other corporations include this as a core value, as a company philosophy and as a way of dealing with employees and clients. Incorporating our need to

absorb, integrate, enhance and use the strengths and opportunities of immigrants as a core value, as a corporate philosophy in everything we do, wherever we are, would be something that we would

appreciate, something that we would value and something that says to the immigrants, "When you come here, we are ready for you. We will do everything we can to make sure you have gainful

employment." We just haven't done that.

Governments are beginning to respond to this issue because there's political pressure, and political pressure is the only thing governments of all political

stripes understand. If we are not pressured, we do not deal with it. In my view, in the last two or three years, governments are beginning to feel the pressure of having to respond to the

underutilization of immigrants and the fact that barriers continue to exist and that we're not breaking them fast enough. Governments understand that there is pressure, and they are moving.

We need doctors. We desperately need doctors, and we know there are thousands of foreign doctors, many of whom are qualified. If they're not, all we need to do

is stretch that door open and allow more and more to be able to get the training so that they can become doctors. Yes, the government is doing a little more in that regard. That's helpful. But,

knowing that we have a shortage of doctors in this province, where over 1.2 million people in this province do not have access to a doctor, why cannot we open the door more so more of those

immigrant doctors have a chance to practise in this province? We can take umbrage from the fact that we're doing a little more than the previous government; I think it's 100 more doctors -- I

forget -- or 50 to 100 more doctors. That's a good thing. How could I not praise that? But when you know that there are thousands of doctors, foreign-trained, looking for work, wanting to be

doctors, and we must believe they can and should be doing it, then why aren't we doing more?

Yes, of course, there are institutions that are not breaking down those barriers fast enough. Why should we, as a government, have to plead with them to change

their policies as opposed to saying, "You will change your policies, you will hire more of these people, and you will do whatever it takes to hire them," rather than saying that we're going to work

with the dental association, or the medical association, or the engineering association or the teaching profession? Working with, in my view, is slow. We need to urge them, to oblige them, to

obligate them to do more. That's what governments could and should be doing.

I feel tremendous angst for so many immigrants who work for so little, yet are so highly trained. Poverty is growing faster, and is fastest among those immigrant

communities. If they come with the training and educational skills they've got, why aren't they better paid? Why do we witness a community of all communities of immigrants suffering economically

unlike ever before? I forget the statistic. I'm not quite sure I remember whether it's 50% of many of the immigrant communities that find themselves in poverty. Even if I'm wrong with that

statistic and it's lower, it's shameful that we are allowing this.

Of course I support the resolution. It is a nice resolution. The member spoke about other things we should be doing. I support that as well. All I say to Mr.

Delaney is that we have to work harder, we have to be more aggressive and we have to lead by example. We have to instruct all our deputy ministers of all the departments we oversee that they must

do more to give the opportunities to immigrants that they so rightly deserve, given that we invite them here with a promise of meaningful and gainful employment. So as much as I'm going to support

this resolution, and say and suggest that we need to do more, I wish we could have had a list of things that we could have supported that would give the government some guidance in terms of what it

should be doing. I hope that, if not now, we will do it soon.

Ms. Laurel C. Broten (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): I'm very pleased to stand in support of the resolution brought by my colleague from Mississauga

West, who I want to say has been a very strong advocate on the part of his constituents, but in particular, on behalf of every new Ontarian who is coming to this province, seeking a better life for

themselves and their family, bringing the skills they have attained in another jurisdiction. My colleague from Mississauga West has been relentless in trying to move this initiative forward, to

bring the debate to this Legislature and to push the Legislature and all of us and all Ontarians along so that we can do more.

"That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should continue to build upon and strengthen initiatives to increase the effectiveness of measures

by employers, professional regulatory bodies, and trade and professional associations to integrate the skills of internationally trained professionals into workforces, trades and the professions in

Ontario."

I say to this Legislature, I stand very proudly in support of that resolution.

The issue we're dealing with today is one I spoke about in the very first speech I made in this House. I have to say that, in my travels around my own community,

some of the most difficult and darkest days were those days I sat with families and heard the stories of their struggles in finding a better life, in coming to Ontario, for their children, and who

said to me, "We didn't know it would be this hard. We didn't expect to find so many barriers. We didn't think so many doors would be closed to us as we came to this country to try to have a better

life for our children." The sacrifice those parents were making was really quite incredible.

On the first speech in the Legislature that I made, I said this about the issue that we're dealing with today:

"We know that the diverse cultures that make up Ontario enrich our communities and strengthen our economy. We are committed to accelerating the integration of

immigrants into our province. When foreign-trained doctors, engineers and PhDs are flipping burgers and driving taxis, that is a betrayal of the pact that was made with them when they uprooted

their families and signed on to come to our province. It is a terrible waste of their valuable skills that we so desperately need. We must put an end to exclusionary practices and invite every new

Canadian to take a seat at the table of opportunity, and we will make that happen."

When I said that statement, both today and in the past, I thought about the families in my community who are struggling to make ends meet and to make a better

life. The statement is no less true today, no less of a challenge for our government and for this province today, than it was a year ago. And I have to say I am no less committed to making sure

that we see this come as a reality and that we give those families a seat at the table of opportunity in this province.

Why is this so important? Because every year 120,000 immigrants choose Ontario as their home. They choose to come to the province that we all live and thrive in

to bring a better life for their families. That's 60% of Canadian immigrants choosing this province as their province of choice. Over 70% of adult immigrants are highly skilled, with post-secondary

education or training. My friend across the House spoke about the fact that the immigrants that we are asking to come to this country are those who have been successful in other jurisdictions,

those who are leaving great opportunities behind to come here and seek out new opportunities for them and their families. We need to make sure that as a province, as a government, as a society, we

open the doors and make sure those highly qualified people gain the skills and are given recognition for the skills and training they bring here so they can find work in the field of their choice

and at the level they have been trained to undertake. So many people come into our province and are forced to work at a level much lower than what they were working at in their home country. We

know, and our government knows, that our province's prosperity depends on improving access for internationally trained immigrants. By 2011, immigrants will account for almost all of Ontario's

workforce growth. And if that is not enough, I think all of us in this House know that we also have the responsibility to do what is right. It is good for the economy, but it is also the right

thing to do.

I want to spend a few minutes talking about some of the initiatives that our government has undertaken. I am pleased to be part of a government that has made

accomplishments in this field since taking office.

To help internationally trained individuals gain the skills and recognition they need to make the transition to Ontario's workforce, we've invested $9.5

million this year to remove barriers that prevent them from pursuing their profession or trade. That investment will increase to $12.5 million in 2005-06.

We've introduced a new centralized assessment service known as IMG-Ontario to help our international medical grads and, in 2004-05, this new service will more

than double the opportunities available to international medical grads to 200, up from 90 the year before. We've also introduced two pilot projects that will help internationally trained medical

graduates strengthen their communication with patients, improve their awareness of medicine in Ontario and assist those who are not working as physicians to use their skills in the many other areas

in our health care sector.

We've also been working with engineers to help internationally trained engineers continue their careers in Ontario. To do so, we've partnered with the

Professional Engineers of Ontario to provide Web-based information, mentoring, coaching and a college course that will meet the Canadian work experience requirement for licensure.

To help remove barriers faced by internationally trained nurses in Ontario, we expanded CARE -- it was spoken about earlier -- which provides internationally

trained nurses with tools they need to prepare for the licensing exam. The pass rate on that exam has now more than doubled.

There are a number of other initiatives that the government has undertaken, and I'll leave it to others in this debate, perhaps, to make mention of those. But

I do want to say that I certainly acknowledge that there is much more work to do be done. We need to continue mentoring and we need to open up those opportunities. In my own community of

Etobicoke-Lakeshore, one of the interesting and very rewarding projects that we undertook was holding a career fair where we brought those organizations that do much of the work to help bridge that

experience, to open the doors, to mentor, to coach and to deal with the fact that immigrants come to this country with a lack of a network and a lack of connections. We brought those individuals

and organizations together with employers and then we opened up that facility to many Ontarians and many residents in my community who are looking for work after having come to this country. We

heard lots of success stories as a result of it. But we continue to hear many issues in my constituency office each and every day.

In closing, I want to say I look forward to being part of a government that will put an end to the exclusionary practices and invite every new Canadian to a

seat at the table of opportunity. I look forward to seeing that day come sooner rather than later.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm pleased to rise this morning, and I will be supporting this resolution. I think it makes a lot of

sense, and that's what we're here for: to make life better for the folks in our province, no matter where they actually come from.

I thought the comments made by Elizabeth Witmer were very valuable. She talked about all the things that the previous government had done in the past, and I

want to say thank you to her for her comments, and also to the former Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, Dianne Cunningham, who set a number of the programs in place that Elizabeth

Witmer talked about this morning.

I wanted to dwell a little bit on the skilled trades portion of the actual resolution. I can tell you that I think there may be far more problems in the

professional area, with doctors, lawyers and perhaps health care professionals, than there is in the skilled trades area. As you know, we've got a fairly strong economy here in Ontario. We've

actually got a shortage of tradespeople in most of the trades. I've dealt with it in my business career as well as doing studies here at Queen's Park in a task force I actually looked after. I

worked a lot with people in the skill trades area in Ontario. First of all, one of the key areas is that we have a shortage of them, but not too many people who come into the province skilled in

areas such as tool and die or millwright working, stonemasons, plumbing, heating contractors, that type of thing, go without a job very long after they come here. They may have to get some

recertification in a few areas because they might have come from an area with completely different codes than we have here in Ontario but, overall, most of the people who come here with a skilled

trades background, I would suggest to you, get employed very quickly in the province of Ontario.

You only have to look at the history of our province to see how many of the immigrants who have come to our country have helped build Ontario. I think of the

Italian community in the construction industry. It's a known fact that in the last three or four decades here in the province, the Italian community has been a leader in the construction industry,

in concrete work and in sewer and water main construction. They have literally built billions and billions of dollars in construction contracts.

I look at how many of the people from the Dutch community have entered our farming organizations as agricultural stakeholders, no matter where they are in the

province. They've built some of the most magnificent farming operations we've ever seen, and could possibly see, anywhere in the world, right here in the province of Ontario.

So I think a lot of good things have been accomplished in the past dealing with our immigrants who come to our province as people with different skills. The

government has accepted them and the people have accepted these folks very wholeheartedly and with enthusiasm, especially at times when they needed skilled trades and employment in these different

areas.

I want to leave a little bit of time, Mr. Speaker, for my colleague Laurie Scott. I couldn't remember her riding name there for a moment, so I know the

difficulty you sometimes have in that job.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): Haliburton-Victoria-Brock.

Mr. Dunlop: Haliburton-Victoria-Brock. I just want to say that I will be supporting Mr. Delaney's bill. Any attempt by the government to make

improvements is important, and I think that should be the emphasis of all political parties in all provinces in our great country.

Mr. Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): I want to begin by thanking the member from Mississauga West for bringing forward this private member's

resolution to this chamber today. This is not a new issue for this member. This member is known in our caucus as the petition king, because I think he has read more petitions in this House than

probably any member from this side of the House, maybe than any member from all sides of the House. The Speaker will know, from being in the chair for petitions, that not a day goes by when Mr.

Delaney is not bringing a message from his constituency to this chamber. He's been up over 40 times raising petitions on access to trades and professions.

So this is not something that has come to this member just out of the blue. This is something he has been working on for a very long time. In fact, as well, he

has been up in petitions working at trying to get a GO station at Lisgar in his community, and he has been successful at that as well. He's not reading the petition on trades and professions any

longer because most of it has been implemented by the government. So I commend him on his work here at Queen's Park. He has worked extremely hard. He's one of the stellar members on this side of

the House, he's an outspoken member of caucus, and I thank the constituents from Mississauga West for sending Bob Delaney here to Queen's Park to do the good work he has done.

I'm pleased to support this resolution. Quite frankly, when you hear the debate from all sides of the House, there's a growing impatience with this issue

arising around the province. It's growing because we recognize how important it is for newcomers to Ontario to be able to access the trades and professions, to be able to do the good work they were

trained to do in other countries. It's important for them and it's important for their families, but it's just as important for each and every one of us in Ontario that they can fulfill to the best

of their abilities, and can contribute to our economy, can deliver for their families and for their communities the best possible work they can do, so that their skills and their abilities can be

maximized. In that way all of us benefit in the end. So it's something that's important.

It's not a new issue. I remember being here in the late 1980s, during the Peterson government, when they were talking about breaking down the barriers to

trades and professions. One would have thought that some 20 years later we wouldn't have to be talking about this any more, but we are because the barriers are still real. I'm proud of what this

government has done. This government has moved forward and broken down a lot of those barriers, but as every speaker has said, there's much more to be done.

Frankly, I'm growing impatient myself with this issue. I'm growing impatient when I see people come into my office like a young doctor, Dr. Arumugam

Ganeshharajah. I'll say that name a few times, and by the end maybe I'll be able to say it without looking down at it. Dr. Ganeshharajah is a recent immigrant to Canada. He's the son-in-law of a

stalwart constituent of my mine, Mr. Nadarasa. He's a physician, trained outside of Canada. In fact, he was more than a physician. He was the chief medical officer of health in Sri Lanka from 2002

to 2004. He was the chief medical officer of health in Oman, in the Arabian Peninsula, from 1985 to 2002. From 1976 to 1985, he was the chief medical officer in Sri Lanka again. So this is not just

a regular, everyday physician. This is somebody who has a very decorated past. He's here now in Canada, he wants to practise his profession, and he has been getting very dejected by the time it's

taking for him to get his credentials and be able to practise. It's becoming a real problem for him and his family.

This is a perfect human example of why we have to do everything we can to move forward so that these individuals who have so much to contribute to our

community can practise their professions. To think that our province is in the midst of a bit of a crisis right now with regard to the shortage of physicians makes this even more frustrating for

all of us.

The good news for this constituent and others in this predicament is that the McGuinty government gets it when it comes to the need to break down the barriers

and take advantage of foreign-trained professionals. To increase supports for internationally trained medical graduates, the McGuinty government is investing $1.7 million over three years in two

pilot projects that will help international medical graduates strengthen their communication with patients, improve awareness of medicine in Ontario, and assist those who are not working right now

as physicians to use their skills in other areas of the health care sector.

I know that Dr. Ganeshharajah will very much welcome these initiatives. He is so desperate to practise in the medical field that I think he would be happy to

volunteer his services. He has volunteered his services, but we haven't been able to find anywhere for him in the health care system that is willing to accept those services at the present time.

This kind of program is something I think will really help.

As well, I am pleased that the McGuinty government has introduced a new centralized assessment service known as IMG-Ontario. Members have spoken previously of

this. In 2004-05, the new centre will more than double the opportunities available to international medical graduates to 200, up from 90 the year before.

This is good news for people like Dr. Ganeshharajah. It's good news for people who have medical and health care credentials from elsewhere, because we know we

need those people working in our health care system. We know it will be in the best interest of our community.

I want to thank Mr. Delaney for bringing this forward. I think it is very important. It is obvious that this government gets it, that we're doing our part.

It's now time to look to the trades and professions and employers out there to join with us in making sure that these well-skilled individuals in the skills, trades and professions can be put to

work, can do the work they are trained to do and benefit all of us as a result.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member for Haliburton-Victoria-Brock.

Ms. Scott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for getting the riding name right.

I am pleased to rise today to have the opportunity to speak to the private member's business by the member for Mississauga West. It certainly is something we

are all in favour of, and people have spoken about that today. But the fact is that in the throne speech they had a year timeline. They were going to reduce the barriers for foreign-trained

doctors, foreign-trained professionals and tradespeople. The year has passed. We still all want that to move forward. It is not moving forward quickly enough. We can all tell many stories of

meeting with foreign-trained tradespeople and professionals in our communities who want to work and want to be part of your communities.

I support the member's bill. He has to bring it forward because I don't think the government has done enough in the time they have been in. We all need to

support the initiative and realize the added value they bring to the province and to Canada. I'm running out of time, but I appreciate the opportunity to speak for this short moment in support of

the motion.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Delaney, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr. Delaney: I acknowledge the comments of the member for Kitchener-Waterloo. As an immigrant herself, I especially appreciate her support and

her personal anecdotes that reinforce the frustrations many new Canadians face, even in a land of prosperity and opportunity such as Ontario. As well, she noted initiatives taken while her party

governed Ontario. I am pleased and relieved that our agreement on the need for action transcends both different governments and party politics. May we continue, in her words, to work

collaboratively.

To the member for Trinity-Spadina, I thank him for his comments. They accurately echo the need and the desperation of many in our newcomer communities.

second language, multicultural, settlement and education partnerships, and many other federal initiatives do assist newcomers and will continue to.

I thank the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. She is one who, in her practice of law, has never lost the common touch and has devoted so much time herself to

issues and causes that assist women, and especially newcomer women. I am especially grateful for her own ongoing personal commitment to making Ontario better for the men and women who have crossed

oceans to help us build our province's future.

To the member for Simcoe North, the member is one who knows first-hand what life is like in the trades. He knows what it's like to get his hands dirty at work.

As such, I find his support especially pleasing to me, and I thank him very much for his comments.

To my colleague from Scarborough Centre, he recognizes that debate in the Ontario Legislature, at what our Premier calls "Ontario's kitchen table," means that

people's voices have been heard and that action and help are on the way.

To the member for Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, I'm sorry. I wish you had had a little bit more time, because I know of your personal commitment to the issue, and

I thank you very much for your support.

Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to debate the issue here this morning, and I look forward to a vote in its favour.

SAFE NEEDLES SAVE LIVES ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR L'UTILISATION D'AIGUILLES SÛRES

POUR SAUVER DES VIES

Ms. Martel moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 179,

An Act to reduce the incidence of needlestick injuries / Projet de loi 179, Loi visant à réduire les incidences de blessures causées

par des piqûres d'aiguille.

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

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I want to begin the debate today by welcoming some of those health care providers who are in the gallery for

the debate today. The bill is about their right to have a safe workplace. It's about the right of other workers to be protected from injuries involving unsafe devices, and for the general public to

be free from harm when unsafe devices end up downstream, in garbage cans and in community parks.

Bill 179 will protect workers and the public from needle-stick injuries. There are a number of medical devices called sharps, which have points or blades, and

so are capable of inflicting a skin-puncturing injury. The most common sharps injury is a skin puncture by a needle attached to a syringe. Hence, the name "needle-stick injury." A worker punctured

by a point or a blade may then be exposed to more than 33 blood-borne diseases, including some very serious or even deadly diseases, like hepatitis C or HIV/AIDS.

SEIU, OPSEU, and the Ontario Federation of Labour estimate that, annually in Ontario, some 33,000 needle-stick injuries occur in the health care sector alone.

Of that number, some 17,000 occur in the acute care sector. Each needle-stick injury, on average, costs the health care system $2,000 in testing and treatment, although for those suffering from

serious or deadly diseases, the costs far exceed that.

In Ontario, some $66 million is spent every year on workers who have had needle-stick injuries. This doesn't include the WSIB costs associated with lost-time

claims, and it doesn't include the emotional cost to workers and their families as they undergo testing for many months to determine if they have contracted a disease from a used needle.

The fact is that workers in the general public don't have to suffer from needle-stick injuries. The technology exists to replace conventional needles and other

sharps with safety-engineered devices which are recognized by Health Canada. They have built-in features that, when engaged, prevent the blade or point of the device from coming into contact with

the user of the device or another person. On some syringes, a guard slides out along the needle and locks into place over the tip of the needle. On others, a hollow sheath slides out to enclose the

needle. Still other syringes retract the needle into the barrel. In all cases, the safety-engineered feature eliminates the possibility of injury by contact with contaminated blood in or on the

device.

My bill would make it mandatory for employers in prescribed workplaces to provide for and ensure the use of safety-engineered medical sharps in any

circumstance where a worker is required to use a medical sharp. The employer must consult with the joint health and safety committee on the selection of the appropriate safety-engineered medical

sharps and must provide training on the use of such devices. In workplaces without committees, the employer must provide training with respect to such devices.

The bill includes a number of sections of Ontario's Occupational Health And Safety Act regarding inspectors, inspections, orders, whistle-blower protection and

penalties for non-compliance by employers. The provisions make it clear that needle-stick injuries are serious health and safety issues and need to be treated as such.

I introduce this bill for two reasons. Firstly, other jurisdictions are in front of us on this issue, and there's no reason for Ontario to fall behind. In

Saskatchewan, in November 2005, a new regulation will be phased in, making it mandatory for employers and self-employed persons to use safety-engineered medical sharps in a wide variety of health

care settings. The government has also asked the task force for sharps injury protection to advise on the use of safety-engineered medical sharps in other workplaces.

In Manitoba, the government announced in its November throne speech that it would introduce legislation probably this spring. In the United States, the

Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act came into effect in 2001. Although it's federal law, it applies to workplaces under state-level jurisdiction. Some 20 states have also enacted their own even

more stringent legal requirements involving the use of safety-engineered medical sharps.

In a study published in 2003, researchers at the International Health Care Worker Safety Center at the University of Virginia showed that after only one year

of implementation, with only one quarter of workplaces in compliance, there was a 51% reduction in needle-stick injuries. If the US and two other provinces can protect workers and the public from

needle-stick injuries, then Ontario can too.

This brings me to the second reason why I've introduced this bill. Those unions representing workers who suffer needle-stick injuries have made numerous

presentations to the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Health and even the Premier about the need for mandatory use of safety-engineered medical sharps. The McGuinty government has not responded.

The health care Health and Safety Action Group told the Minister of Labour in three different meetings that mandatory use of safety-engineered medical sharps is a priority. In a letter sent to him

on November 19, 2004, the group said:

"First, we need legislation to ensure that safety-engineered medical devices are introduced within the next year to health care workplaces across the province.

Over 33,000 health care workers suffer needle-stick injuries every year in Ontario.... A regulation requiring the mandatory use of safety-engineered needles and other medical devices will not only

eliminate up to 90% of such devastating injuries, but will actually result in a net savings of precious health care dollars."

Because of the lack of response from this government, SEIU, OPSEU and the OFL launched their provincial needle-stick campaign on March 11. The purpose of the

campaign is to convince the government to do the right thing. When the Minister of Labour was asked what he thought of making safe devices mandatory, he told the Globe and Mail, "We're looking at

that suggestion." I'd remind the Minister of Labour that it's been over a year since his own health care health and safety working group told him that making safety devices mandatory was a

priority. How long does it take to look at this suggestion?

The minister also told the Globe, "So we're assessing whether we should have a regulation and if you have it, what it should look like." If that's the case, he

should pick up the phone and call the Honourable Deb Higgins, Minister of Labour in Saskatchewan, and ask her for a copy of the Saskatchewan regulation. Better yet, he could go on-line to the

Saskatchewan Ministry of Labour and see the regulation, because it's printed there.

This is not a complex matter to solve. Regrettably, the government seems more interested in a one-time, short-term, band-aid approach. On the same afternoon as

the March 11 press conference, the Minister of Labour announced one-time funding of $11.6 million to allow hospitals to buy some safety-engineered medical sharps. Instead of the mandatory use of

safe devices, the minister will let hospitals buy some safe devices which will last for a limited time, providing limited protection for acute health care workers only. When the supply runs out,

employers can go back to conventional needles and sharps, and workers will be at risk all over again. Where is the sense in that?

The Sault Star had it right in an editorial it ran on March 14, which was then run in the Toronto Star on March 16. It said:

"Ontario's Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care has taken a step in the right direction by earmarking extra cash for hospitals to buy safer medical equipment

this year, but it's not good enough....

"The government should make instruments such as safety-engineered needles mandatory in all hospitals and clinics -- and funding for the equipment should be

allocated as part of every facility's annual operating budget rather than a one-time infusion of $11.6 million....

"The solution is not rocket science. Rather than conventional needles, health facilities should be using available safer forms that draw the needle into the

syringe after use similar to the way a retractable pen works.

"Health care workers put themselves into dangerous situations every hour of every day to help the people of Ontario, and it is unconscionable to subject them

to such unnecessary risks when a ready solution exists.

"Needles also pose a danger to everyone who might come into contact with the instruments until they are safely destroyed or buried. That includes hospital

custodial staff, refuse collection personnel and even members of the public.

"Humanitarian concerns alone justify investing in safety needles, but bean counters ... should also be fully in favour considering the cost of testing and

treating people who have been injured.

"Ontario already suffers a dearth of health care providers in many disciplines. Every effort must be made to protect them from infection that can remove them

from the front lines temporarily or, even more tragically, permanently.

"This one is a no-brainer: Replace all conventional needles with safe versions, the sooner the better."

The mandatory use of safety-engineered medical sharps is a serious health and safety issue in Ontario. No one has to suffer needle-stick injury, because the

technology exists to replace conventional devices with safe devices. The weighted average cost of the five most widely used categories of conventional devices is 12 cents. By comparison, the

average weighted cost of the corresponding safety-engineered devices is 40 cents. I think that eliminating the risk of a sharps injury and a possible serious or deadly disease is worth a

quarter.

It's time to protect workers and the public in Ontario from needle-stick injuries. I ask members for their support for this bill on second reading and their

support to refer this bill to the standing committee.

In closing, I'd like to very much thank the workers who are here today, particularly workers from SEIU, OPSEU, ONA and the Ontario Federation of Labour, who

have been part of the sharps alliance part of pushing this government to do the right thing; that is, the mandatory use of safety-engineered devices.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): It's a pleasure to join the debate on the private member's bill, Bill 179, that's before us. I do want to

take this time to extend my compliments to the member from Nickel Belt for bringing forward this issue. I too have had visits in my office from some of the people who are very concerned about this

issue, who would like to see some changes take place and who certainly have their opinion as to the practicality of the act and how it actually translates into practical means, on the hospital

floor or on the floor of the health care setting, on a day-to-day basis. I thank the member for bringing forward this important issue. I know how important it is.

Occupational health and safety is a top priority of this government and of the Ministry of Labour. The member mentioned the minister and some of his comments.

We know that changes are needed to the Occupational Health and Safety Act. We know that improvements need to be made. We know that some of the things that have taken place during the past 10 years,

perhaps, in this field haven't been changes in the right direction. We know that inspections perhaps haven't in the past taken place in a timely manner where they should have taken place.

I think, as we move forward in general on occupational health and safety and we look at such things as the ergonomics panel, which I've been asked to chair,

that those types of things make a difference in the everyday life of ordinary working people in a very practical way. It's the right thing to do. As we improve the Occupational Health and Safety

Act and our inspection record in that regard, I think it's a means of ensuring that all employees in Ontario have a right to work in safe workplaces.

I'd like to take a two-pronged approach in my comments this morning. One is to express my support for the private member's bill that she has placed before us.

I think it's a very timely issue, as I've said. The other is that I'd like to take this opportunity as well to express, or to explain -- perhaps that would be a better word -- some of the ground we

have been able to make up in this field in the very short period of time since we formed this government, which is now about 18 months, some of the recent funding announcements that have been made

by our government in regard to health care and specifically in regard to safety-engineered medical devices. This goes along with a number of Ministry of Labour initiatives and I think also ties in

with a number of Ministry of Health initiatives.

I had the pleasure on Thursday last week of visiting my own hospital, Oakville-Trafalgar Memorial Hospital in Oakville, and seeing firsthand some results of

the implementation of some of the recent funding announcements, things like bed lifts and safety-engineered medical devices. I think we contributed somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000

specifically to my local hospital. Certainly, it was well received by the staff who were in attendance at the announcement. It was long overdue. It received very favourable press. The member was

saying that she had read editorials on this issue. I too have read editorials on this issue and newspaper articles that have been very complimentary to the type of progress that has been made.

I know from the remarks the member has made that she would like to see more happen; I understand that. I think this government is committed to ensuring safe

workplaces for Ontario's health care workers. We'd like to see more things happen, obviously, in a number of areas, this being one of them. At this point in time the approach we have taken, and it

has become clear to us, is that it's best achieved by the effective use, right now, of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. In the short term or near term, there is a way of dealing with it in

the immediate future as you invoke the full power of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. At the same time I'm saying that, I'm also expressing my personal support for the private member's bill,

because I think you can take a two-pronged approach, as I was saying: You support the private member's bill and allow further investigation of this issue and allow it to move forward to committee,

and you take the short-term approach that we're taking at the Ministry of Labour.

Just for the sake of providing you with a few numbers in support of what we have done to date under the provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act:

Every acute care facility in the province was inspected in 2004 under our term of government. The focus was on infection control and compliance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act. A total

of 2,172 orders were issued in the 192 acute care facilities, and 68 of those orders related specifically to needle sticks; 25 orders required the provision or the use of safety-engineered medical

devices. This government has committed $11.6 million, as the previous speaker alluded to, to ensure that safety-engineered medical sharps can be used where necessary to protect health care

workers.

The current system allows for different patient circumstances and different health care risks in particular settings to be taken into account by the health and

safety inspectors to craft what they believe is the safest possible solution. My fear is -- and it's not a large enough fear that it would make me not support the bill. But what we need to think

about and take into account is, would the proposed bill eliminate the opportunity that is being afforded by our being able to customize some of the orders? It may or may not, but it's certainly

worthy of investigation. It's a point that needs to be considered.

We believe that OHSA to date, under our term of government, has been an effective framework for dealing with the issue of medical sharps, and we are continuing

to look at ways that this framework can be used to more effect. That's why this morning I'm supportive of the private member's bill. Among all those considerations as we move forward on this issue,

certainly the opinion that has being expressed by the private member is one we need to take into account.

I'd like to thank you for the time and once again express my support and my gratitude to the member for bringing this forward.

Mr. John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): The member for Nickel Belt was my critic for a number of years when I was in government. When I first got

here, I thought she was a rather partisan member, and I have to concede that I didn't like her for my first few years in this place. The member once went after me in question period and made quite

a strong case, screaming at me at the top of her lungs.

Interjections.

Mr. Baird: Listen. This is a fun story. On my alarm clock I normally have the buzzer come on, but for some reason I'd pressed the radio to

come on -- I have my radio station set to CFRA in Ottawa -- and I awoke in a cold sweat. The news had come on at 6 a.m. and the lead story was Shelley Martel screaming at me, which awoke me from my

sleep.

Ms. Martel: It was a nightmare.

Mr. Baird: "It was a nightmare," the member for Nickel Belt says.

Ms. Martel: It was a nightmare dealing with you. Come on.

Mr. Baird: It was a nightmare dealing with me. But I want to tell you that as I spend more time in this place I have gained, as I think all

the members have, respect for the member and for the causes she pursues.

I'm not just speaking on behalf of constituents in Nepean-Carleton today. I'd like to think I'm speaking for patients in Ontario. I'd like to think I'm

speaking for health care workers, for nurses, when I say that 25 cents, a quarter, is what we're talking about here, to provide a little protection to a problem that is not treatable; it's a

problem that is 100% preventable.

The member for Nickel Belt talked about the serious infectious diseases hepatitis C and HIV/AIDS, and these are just two of many, many infectious diseases that

can be spread by this accident. It's 100% treatable, though. While for those two and many other diseases, there is no cure, no inoculation, there is a surefire way to prevent this from happening.

As I was reviewing the information provided by the member, she talked about an estimated 30,000 employees. I, frankly, don't really think it matters whether it's 30,000, 300,000 or 3,000. If we in

this House, who act as the employers for the people of Ontario when it comes to the provision of health services, can do something to protect one, let alone 3,000, 30,000 or 300,000 incidents of

workplace injury for the price of a quarter, I think we have an obligation to do so.

I'm a Conservative. I think we have far too many laws in this province. I think we are over-regulated to death. One area where I think virtually everyone in

the province would agree is that the Occupational Health and Safety Act has to be clear and has to be strong to protect workers. Surely there could be any number of statutes and regulations that

could be repealed to allow the Ontario government and the ministry not just to regulate this, because -- and I appreciate the comments by the member from Oakville -- this is not just a labour

issue, it's a health care issue. Obviously, there will be some associated costs with respect to our hospitals, our long-term-care centres, our community health centres and so forth with the passage

of this bill. But I know that if I knocked on 100 doors in my community and said, "Do you think this would be a wise and important use of your taxpayer dollars?" 100 out of 100 would say yes. That

would be a very rare unanimity that you'd find on a public policy issue.

One area where I might disagree with the member for Nickel Belt is that it's a question that we'd save money. Even if we didn't save money as a result of the

$2,000 per infection -- you cited 17,000 acute cases alone -- that it would cost in hospitals, you mentioned the $66 million this would cost if we don't do it, plus the Workplace Safety and

Insurance Board claims, which would be significantly more than that, particularly if it was something like HIV/AIDS where it could be going on for a protracted period of time while someone was

afflicted. I don't know how any argument can be made in this example to say that we can't afford to do it. We can't afford not to do it.

I appreciate that this Minister of Labour made some comments one year ago that he believes this to be an issue and that they take this health and safety stuff

very seriously over there. Let's look at the kind of legislation we've had on the order paper. Let's look at the kind of legislation we've debated in this House. We spent how many days debating

bring-your-own-wine? Now, there's a priority for the people of the province of Ontario.

Interjection: And even now, no one does.

Mr. Baird: And even now, no one does. Why would we possibly take the Legislature's time to debate a bring-your-own-wine bill when such an

important issue has been brought forward by the member from Nickel Belt?

Pit bulls. We banned pit bulls. Far more people are hurt and injured by these injuries than are attacked by pit bulls, unless in other parts of the province

there are packs of pit bulls terrorizing communities.

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): With syringes.

Mr. Baird: With syringes, the member from Niagara Centre says. But I look at the kind of legislation we've dealt with in this House that is

far less important, far less serious and far less relevant to people and their families and communities in the province of Ontario than the kind of legislation that we have debated in this House.

We've debated issues like banning raw sushi -- a big priority for the taxpayers, I tell you. I'm getting just plenty of calls in Nepean on that. We talked about spending time on redesigning the

trillium logo -- you know, the trillium that adorns all of our letterhead? The trillium. Gee, that's an important point. The government is spending time, the government is spending money in the

Premier's office and the communications whiz kids in the Premier's office are spending time on some of these trivial issues.

With respect to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, we the people of Ontario are the employers of health care workers, and we are their voice and their

agent. We have a heightened responsibility, not just when it comes to our firefighters, our police officers and our paramedics, but also to our health care workers, who each and every day put

themselves at risk. We saw during SARS the number of health care workers who went to work each and every day. The one thing that was worse than the danger they faced was the uncertainty, not

knowing what the danger was on a day-to-day basis. We find out now that at one facility here in Toronto it was an airborne infection. A nurse or a physician or a hospital worker who was not even in

that room could have contracted it through the air system. I don't think there's any evidence that that happened, but we've got to take that very seriously.

The provincial government has increased the share that they pay for public health. I think they've done it 25% for this year? They're moving to pay 75% of the

public health dollars?

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): Uploading.

Mr. Baird: Uploading. But none of these public health units is using this money for public health. What they're doing is just spending it on

other things. If we're going to put more money into public health, surely to goodness, whether it's our flu program, which is probably one of the biggest sources of the use of syringes, this would

have a greater priority. I'll tell you, if you go to Ottawa, our mayor is spending $5 million on some bridge over the canal so that the students don't have to walk three blocks to the brand new

$40-million bridge that they built last year.

Mr. Kormos: And $200,000 on that tour of European brothels.

Mr. Baird: And $200,000 on a tour of European brothels. What a priority for the people of Canada. Thanks goodness Peter Kormos, my buddy here,

stood up and exposed that waste of taxpayers' money.

I suppose we can't pay. I suppose we can't afford to protect our nurses and health care workers because there are deserving companies like Groupaction. There

is some train museum or some golf club in Shawinigan that desperately needs the support of the taxpayers. But I say that we should be able to afford to pay for this. I challenge every member to go

to their constituency, knock on 100 doors and ask your constituents if they'd be willing to pay 25 cents more for our health care workers to be protected. I will guarantee you that 100 out of 100

will say yes.

I want to see this bill passed today, but for those health care workers who are here, it's meaningless. It isn't going to pass third reading, because we will

prorogue. This House will prorogue some time in May or June, and the question -- the real, true amount of support -- will be for members on the government side of the House to say, "You know what?

This is a priority. It's not a partisan issue. We can work together on issues that are nonpartisan that are tremendously important."

Interjection.

Mr. Baird: I have worked very hard. I worked hard to get your chief medical officer of health bill. I worked very hard on the same-sex

marriage bill to get that passed expeditiously. I worked hard on a number of pieces of legislation where the government has been prepared to come forward and work constructively. The problem is,

government bills take priority over private members' bills in committee. I want to say on behalf of the official opposition, we will be happy to sit an extra day to hear from the public on this

issue and to do clause-by-clause. So there is no excuse. Would you agree to that, I say to the House leader for the third party?

Mr. Kormos: In a New York minute.

Mr. Baird: "In a New York minute," he said. So we will give an extra morning. I say to the folks from the government House leader's office who

are here, if they want it to be a Monday morning from 8 till 1, where we could have witnesses in and do clause-by-clause, it'll be no opportunity cost for you. If we want to call this bill for

third reading, I'd be happy to sit on a Thursday night some day to deal with this. What about the House leader for the third party?

Mr. Kormos: I've got nothing else planned.

Mr. Baird: Nothing else planned.

The Deputy Speaker: I remind the member for Nepean-Carleton that I feel a little left out of the conversation.

Mr. Baird: You probably don't have a Speaker rotation set up for Thursday night, and I know you, Speaker, would be more than happy to stay

here on a Thursday night to preside over third reading of this bill. We'll see if there's real support for this bill. We've got both opposition parties saying that we will clear the decks for a

committee to consider this, to have the time. We'll clear the decks for third reading time in the House. We'll co-operate, as we are always very co-operative with the government on legislation

passing Parliament. I know Lou Rinaldi will want to support this bill for third reading because I know workers in Northumberland care about this issue. We must get this bill considered in

committee. It's tremendously important.

This is not just an issue with respect to hospitals. I toured the Queensway Carleton Hospital and spent five hours there working in the emergency ward,

shadowing a nurse, and the pandemonium that goes on in that type of high stress environment -- it's not like some sort of tea party, when you can be mindful. When you've got patients coming in, the

nurses have got to triage them. They've got so much pressure, whether it's a nurse, a health worker or even a physician, or even a member of the public -- it could be a mother bringing in her son

to get cared for in an emergency ward who is injured by this.

Surely to goodness we can come together on what is a non-partisan issue. I noticed the member for Nickel Belt gave a very non-partisan speech on this issue. It

has a lot of support from working women and men in the province, I say to the member for Niagara Centre, to stop the needle-stick and medical equipment injuries in Ontario. If this can save one

life, if this can lead to reduced injuries for health care workers, it will lead to greater productivity. It will demonstrate that we accept the responsibility as the agent for the employers, the

people of Ontario, by passing this important piece of legislation.

I want to indicate to the member that I will be supporting this bill. I will also be supporting it going to committee and supporting it coming for third

reading. That's when we'll find out whether this minister and this Premier are really serious about standing up for workers in this province. Let's not support injured workers; let's prevent those

injuries in the first place. That's where we're best to put more of our time, effort and energy. I say to the House, it's well worth 25 cents to do it.

I look forward to the next speaker, who I think is the member for Niagara Centre. Don't adjust your TV sets. You've got a great speaker coming up next.

Mr. Kormos: I am so pleased to participate in this debate, and so pleased to see Ms. Martel's Bill 179 go to a vote in, oh, just 30 minutes or

so. I am even more pleased that it's obvious that members of this Legislature of all political stripes understand how important this bill is. I look forward to seeing Bill 179 dealt with by

committee.

I also want to make special mention of the incredible amount of work that has been done on this issue by the Service Employees' International Union; by OPSEU;

by ONA, the Ontario Nurses' Association; by CUPE; indeed in addition to them, the alliance that was set up in 2002, which consisted of the SEIU and ONA, as well as being endorsed by the Canadian

Nurses Association, the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions and the Canadian Intravenous Nurses Association. In 2003, the Ontario Federation of Labour passed a resolution supporting in effect the

principle behind Bill 179. There is clear, unequivocal support from the Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Nova Scotia federations of labour. Also extremely helpful in explaining to mere laypeople like

myself, who have so little understanding about the technology, has been Chuck Rachlis.

I want to show you a device that has been used by this alliance, and in particular sponsored by SEIU, the Service Employees' International Union, this mock-up

of a safety-engineered syringe. As a matter of fact, if the Sergeant at Arms -- page, would you please --

The Deputy Speaker: You put me in a tough position. That's a prop, I believe, and shouldn't have been brought in here. Would you take your

seat for just a moment, please? I think the member understands this.

Mr. Kormos: Thank you, Speaker. I was in the process of surrendering that to the table so it could be kept as an exhibit and part of the

record of this debate.

I'll join others in pointing out that the cost -- perhaps a page could come forward, please, and deliver this quarter to the table. I surrender that particular

device as well. Would you take that to the Clerks' table, please, and give it to them? I surrender yet another prop, a mere 25 cents, a mere quarter, which is the monetary cost of incorporating

safety-engineered medical sharps in day-to-day usage in health care facilities so that our health professionals, all of them, can work more effectively, more safely and with the greater confidence

that they can come to work again tomorrow in the same physical health as they attended at work yesterday.

I want to comment on the member from Nepean-Carleton, who preceded me and was so gracious in introducing me. He made reference to the member for Nickel Belt

and his first meeting with her and his recollections of her at the time. My experience is far different. I liked the member from Nickel Belt the minute I met her and never doubted her commitment to

the people in her community, to the people in her riding, but also to the people across this province. Ms. Martel, as you well know, Speaker, has the respect of people in this Legislature across

political lines. Oh, she is far from non-partisan. She is the most partisan member I can think of, and she has illustrated and demonstrated that in her written work, in her spoken work and in her

performance here in the Legislature on so many occasions.

But you heard the member from Nepean-Carleton, when making reference to the cost, put this in context. You heard him make reference to my criticism of that

$200,000 -- that's almost a quarter of a million dollars -- that five federal MPs are proposing to spend of taxpayers' money to tour the brothels, the whorehouses of Europe. That's $40,000 apiece.

The members are one John Maloney, who's my federal counterpart down in Niagara Centre, a Liberal; there's a New Democrat, Ms. Davies, from the Vancouver area; another Liberal, one Dr. Hedy Fry; a

Conservative, former über-Reformer, one Art Hanger; and a Bloc Québécois member whose name I don't know. I read it but I don't remember because I don't know who it is. The Bloc

Québécois, as you know, are very insular and don't really -- but it rotted my socks to think that these five people were requisitioning 40 grand apiece to visit hookers in Europe.

The Deputy Speaker: I'm sure that you're going to get to some relativity of your comments to this bill, and I would appreciate hearing it.

Mr. Kormos: Thank you kindly, Speaker. It's all about putting the cost into context. You've got federal politicians who want to spend almost a

quarter of a million dollars, going to the red light district of Amsterdam, and Sweden, I'm told; they are going to drop in at Reno, Nevada. Couldn't they just have watched the movie? What was the

name: The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas? I think it's in the movie. You can get it at Blockbuster. Quite frankly, as I've indicated, I can take these folks down to Bridge Street in Niagara Falls

and introduce them to any number of prostitutes on a good day.

The Deputy Speaker: The member from Niagara Centre, I still haven't heard what I think should be discussed: this bill that is before our House

in the province of Ontario, please.

Mr. Kormos: Thank you kindly, Speaker. You get my point, and I have gotten yours. I apologize for having made you irate. I didn't mean to

cause the Speaker to rise to his feet to chastise me. I thought I was being fairly balanced in castigating in a multi-partisan way the participants in that $200,000 European junket.

I wanted to draw your attention to that as a way of pointing out that in the total scheme of things, if we're talking about costs -- because I heard the

Minister of Health just the other day. Didn't you, Ms. Martel? When Ms. Martel was talking about this issue -- it was during question period -- he threw up his hands and said, "Where's the money

going to come from?" Isn't that what he said? `Where's the money going to come from?"

It's going to come from the same place that the five federal members expect the money to come from on their brothel junket of Europe. It's going to come from

the same place as a similar group of five federal members' budget is going to come from on their junket being proposed -- Don Boudria was the author of this one -- to New Zealand and Australia to

examine electoral reform.

But like other participants in the debate, I'm confident that there isn't a taxpayer in this province, there is not a voter in this province, there is not a

resident of this province who wouldn't be pleased and proud to see the public investment of 25 cents per instrument -- a public investment in workplace health and safety; a public investment in our

health care professionals; a public investment in the quality of health care in this province -- and an acknowledgement, quite frankly, of the sacrifices that health care professionals make on a

daily basis, especially at a point in time when public health care is very much under attack both provincially and federally and when health professionals are being called upon to bear the brunt of

a $6-billion deficit being generated by this Liberal government here at Queen's Park -- in good times; not in a period of recession, or, dare I say, of a depression of the early 1990s, when

revenues had literally fallen through the floor. There were no revenues. Remember that, Ms. Martel? In good times, this government has generated a deficit of $6 billion, and I tell you that it is

criminal of McGuinty and the Liberals to tell health professionals that they should have to bear the burden of that deficit on their backs.

There they were in the SARS epidemic. We surely haven't forgotten that, have we? We haven't forgotten the sacrifices the health professionals made when SARS

struck Ontarians, nor have we forgotten the continued commitment on the part of health professionals to respond to health crises like that, notwithstanding the tremendous risk to themselves in

doing so and notwithstanding that they're called upon to do it more often than not without adequate tools, without adequate resources and with, at the very best on the best of days, middling

leadership.

I tell you that the New Democrats are eager to see this Bill 179 receive second reading, so that it can then go to committee. It's important that during this

session, through to June 2005, the committee deal with this bill, that the committee send it back to this Legislature and that the government House leader, because it is the government House

leader's responsibility, ensure that it be called for third reading.

To pay lip service to it today but then to let it linger in legislative orbit, to let it be sent to the black hole of private members' public business, is an

affront to health professionals here in Ontario. To want to play the good guy when there are folks sitting in the gallery, when there are witnesses, but then, once we're in the dark of night,

without any onlookers, to say, "Oh, well, we'll give it lip service on second reading but we'll just let it slip; we'll let it go out to that centrifugal perimeter where private members' public

business so often ends up," will not go without observation by the interested parties.

How much more do health professionals in this province have to put up with before they can expect a little bit of consideration? This is but a modest amount of

consideration of the important role they play in our own lives, in our families' lives and in our communities' welfare and health. So I look forward to the vote on this. I want to be here with Ms.

Martel and other New Democrats. I know people like Andrea Horwath from Hamilton have an intense interest in this. Her support for this, like other New Democrats at Queen's Park, has been

unhesitatingly and unequivocally enthusiastic. So Andrea Horwath, Michael Prue, Rosario Marchese, Gilles Bisson, Howard Hampton and Marilyn Churley are going to support this bill. We support our

health professionals, and this bill is the right thing to do at the right time.

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I think, in speaking on this bill, Bill 179, anyone would be hard-pressed to vote against it.

This is a bill that speaks very clearly to issues of safety in the workplace.

Many people think of doctors, nurses and other health care providers as being in a very nurturing occupation, and I think we often forget that it's also a very

dangerous occupation. I have a daughter who is a nurse, and when she first got into the idea of becoming a nurse, she looked at the nurturing part of it. But then, as she went through her studies,

she started to understand the dangers of the occupation, and some of those are dangers and risks that can't be prevented. We all have those kinds of things in the occupations that we choose, but

there are others, such as the issue of the needle sticks and the sharps, that can be prevented. One thing we certainly want to do is take some of the risks out of an occupation that may act as

deterrents to people coming into it. We want to take every opportunity we can to prevent that, so I support this bill.

I think that, as a government, we support it as well. We have invested $1.6 million, which was announced by the Minister of Health, Mr. Smitherman, at the

beginning of March, on this very issue. We are taking action as a government to try to deal with the whole issue of the dangers that can be prevented in terms of needle sticks and sharps. So I

would speak to it in support, and I want to thank the Speaker for the opportunity to do so.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member for Perth-Middlesex.

Mr. Wilkinson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's good to see you in the chair today.

Something I have learned -- I've been in this place for 18 months -- is that hospitals are dangerous places. They are wonderful places where you're cared for

if you're sick, but for those brave public servants who actually work in our hospitals there is danger lurking around every corner. That's the first thing we need to recognize in this debate. We

know that the first thing we have to recognize is that danger, and that's something I had to learn.

I spent a wonderful day in Stratford General Hospital with the nurses who work in our ORs. I saw the entire system, from the people who do the sterilization,

the people who pull out the various instruments for every surgeon for that day's surgery, the people who coordinate it, the people who do the input and the nurses in the OR who are actually

assisting the surgeons. I got to see three surgeries that day -- they scrubbed me in -- and I can tell you it was an eye-opening experience. I say this because from that experience I have a greater

understanding of the danger and of what our responsibility is, in this place, to protect those nurturing people, our nurturing public servants, and to keep them safe.

As the member from Mississauga West was saying, we are facing a shortage of skilled workers, particularly doctors and nurses, because of the effect of the baby

boom. We can't afford to lose any of them, and it would be a waste if we lost a nurse or a doctor through something that is completely preventable.

I commend the member from Nickel Belt for introducing the bill, and I tell her that I look forward to supporting her today and the passage of this bill into

law. I did some research -- I want to make sure I get this right -- and on the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety's Web site I find it quite interesting that they were saying that

in Canada, in the period from April 1, 2000, to March 31, 2001, there were 33,833 cases where they feel there was exposure through sharps.

I can tell you that the number one occupation within health care that is exposed is our registered nurses. But again, if we look beyond the risk factor, it's

quite interesting that phlebotomists, who draw blood, actually have the greatest risk when you look at it on a per capita basis. They're followed by MDs, doctors who are residents and specialists

and even our nuclear medicine technicians and sterilization attendants.

I had an opportunity to go into my riding last week. The Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, George Smitherman, announced $11.6 million to help us go

needleless. I say to the member from Nickel Belt that she has good intentions. But in this place, there are good intentions and then there's money. What you have to do is put the money on your

priorities. I was proud to go to our three hospitals -- Listowel Memorial, St. Marys and Stratford -- in my own riding, representing the minister, and talk about the money that's been flowed to our

hospitals to go needleless.

The hospital in Stratford decided a few years ago to go completely needleless, and they just won a national award and received a $1,000 grant for their

forward-thinking approach on this. They had to find it out of a very tight budget, but they were committed to making sure that the workplace was as safe as possible, to minimize that danger. I

quote from the chief executive officer of that hospital, Mr. Andrew Williams. I thought he was quite wise to say that of course this was another example of our government's "commitment to the

safety of health care workers and the patients who use hospital services.... These funds will further reinforce our commitment towards providing a safe environment at all of our Alliance sites for

our patients, staff and volunteers."

I had a great opportunity when I was in Listowel and in St. Marys and Stratford to actually make the announcement with nurses and the health care workers

there, not just the brass. I wanted to talk to the people who actually would benefit from this. I was amazed at the technology that can be used today to provide that safety. As the member from

Nepean-Carleton and the member from Niagara Centre mentioned, we're only talking about pennies, and we have to compare those pennies versus the risk of losing a nurse or a doctor or any health care

worker.

It's interesting. I found out that they were saying that in the emergency room, when things are crazy -- things can be just crazy in the emergency room; it's a

very hectic place. It wasn't just the nurses. A sharp can be thrown away into the garbage, but one of the great people who are support staff workers at the hospital can become infected. There is

actual fact to back this up. The people who do the laundry at our hospitals, who deal with all of that linen -- if there are sharps in there, they also are exposed. So it's not just a question of

nurses or doctors. It's important. I know that even at Stratford General Hospital we had two nurses who were potentially infected. They were out of commission for six months, waiting to see whether

or not they were actually infected with hepatitis C or AIDS or some other deadly disease.

I want to let you know that, on the government side, we support the member from Nickel Belt's initiative. But beyond that, we are actually putting the money

into the system that's required to make it safer. I urge all members to vote in support of the bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Ms. Martel, you have two minutes.

Ms. Martel: I'd like to thank the members from Oakville, Nepean-Carleton, Niagara Center, Lambton-Kent-Middlesex and Perth-Middlesex for their

intervention today. Let me make a couple of comments in reply.

I say to the member from Oakville, the government of Saskatchewan is bringing in its regulation under its own health and safety act. I would have liked to see

Ontario do that too. But unfortunately, despite repeated requests to this Minister of Labour to do that, we haven't been able to get the McGuinty government to bring in a regulation under the

Occupational Health and Safety Act to make safety-engineered devices mandatory. That's why I've had to bring in the private member's bill.

Secondly, the bill would customize orders for the Ministry of Labour, because many of the provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act with respect to

orders, inspections, compliance etc., appear in the bill.

With respect to the comments made by the member from Perth-Middlesex about the recent government announcement and putting money on the table, I have to remind

him that the money that was put on the table is one-time funding only. So after those hospitals purchase safety-engineered medical devices and after those devices are used up, then the hospitals

can go back to the conventional devices, and we put health care workers at risk again. We need a permanent solution, and the permanent solution is to pass a regulation or pass legislation that

makes the use of safety-engineered devices mandatory in prescribed workplaces in Ontario and forces employers to use the joint health and safety committee to determine which medical sharps will be

used and also to provide training to workers in those workplaces to make sure they know how to use those devices properly.

As recently as March 24, the health care Health and Safety Action Group, which represents the unions whose workers are most affected, wrote to the minister

again. They thanked him for the March 10 announcement but said the announcement "is limited in four critical areas": It covers only acute care facilities as opposed to all workplaces, it's

voluntary rather than mandatory, the funding is one-time, and we need other issues like training, as well, to back it up.

I say to all members, if we're going to make this work, then it has to be a mandatory regulation or mandatory legislation that ensures that workers are able to

use safety-engineered medical devices, that employers are mandated to make sure that happens and that employers are mandated to ensure the training happens so they can use those devices properly.

That's what this bill is all about.

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

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall first deal with ballot item number 55, standing in the name of Mr. Delaney.

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

SAFE NEEDLES SAVE LIVES ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR L'UTILISATION

D'AIGUILLES SÛRES

POUR SAUVER DES VIES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall now deal with ballot item number 56, standing in the name of Ms. Martel.

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

Pursuant to standing order 96 --

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'd like the bill referred to the standing committee on justice.

The Deputy Speaker: The member has asked that the bill be referred to the standing committee on justice. Agreed? Agreed.

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

The House recessed from 1200 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

OPP AUXILIARY

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm very pleased to be able to rise today and announce to everyone in the House that tomorrow is the 45th

anniversary of the Ontario Provincial Police auxiliary program here in Ontario. It was established in 1960 and it is the largest provincial police volunteer organization in the country today.

Today, they have approximately 938 members and these 938 members actually volunteer about 220,000 hours of time, helping out our regular Ontario Provincial

Police officers throughout the course of a season. The auxiliary members are included in all of the different detachments throughout our province.

Under the leadership of Commissioner Gwen Boniface, who is the overall head of the Ontario Provincial Police, the program is controlled and directed by

Inspector Brian Wagner, who is the program manager, and Superintendent Mike Morton, who is the executive director.

The OPP auxiliary is made up of men and women from all walks of life who want to dedicate something back to their community in the process of working with

police officers throughout our province. I want to wish them a very happy 45th anniversary tomorrow and wish the OPP and the auxiliary program all the best for the future years.

KITCHENER CHURCH OF GOD

Mr. John Milloy (Kitchener Centre): During the second weekend of April, the Kitchener Church of God will celebrate the opening of its new

tri-city multicultural community centre. The Church of God has been an active part of our community since 1975, and over the past three decades has grown from 15 members to its current average

attendance of 250 active churchgoers.

One of the church's mottos comes from the Book of Proverbs: "Where there is no vision, the people perish." After doing an assessment of the needs of the

community, particularly the youth, they kept true to this statement by embarking on an ambitious plan to construct their new 11,500-square-foot facility at a cost of $1.5 million. Located at the

corner of Weber and Ottawa Streets in Kitchener, the new community centre will offer its congregation a meeting space, tutoring programs for children struggling in school, a seniors' centre, a food

bank outlet, a daycare centre, an after-school program and a place for local youth to call home.

I have had the honour of attending a number of events at the Church of God, including the groundbreaking for this new facility in late 2003, and want to

congratulate their pastor, Reverend Canute Riggan, and all the church members for their hard work over the past year and a half in making this dream a reality. I look forward to attending the

official opening and celebrating this important achievement for the people of Waterloo region.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Yesterday I rose and thanked the minister for trickling down some money to help our farmers. Our tobacco farmers

got 70% of the money they were promised. Though a good start, it is, quite frankly, not enough -- not enough for last year, not enough for this year and not enough for the future.

I also asked the minister for the McGuinty government's plan for agriculture. The farmers of Ontario are still waiting. Our farmers are still at home, waiting

and wondering, "Where is Ontario going? Will I have the money to put the crops in the ground?" Our farmers need a plan, and our farmers deserve a plan. I will ask again today, Minister: Where is

the McGuinty government's plan for agriculture?

But wait; I hear news today that maybe a plan has been released, maybe the minister has put some ideas and thoughts on paper. After turning on the radio this

morning, we heard the minister touting his plan for our tobacco farmers. What does the minister's plan for tobacco farmers include? A trickle of money and encouragement for our tobacco farmers to

switch from tobacco and start growing alternative crops.

Then I read with interest Minister Peters' comments on www.cannabisnews.com and www.marijuana.com, where he advocates the growing of alternative crops.

Frankly, the farmers of Ontario are concerned. It appears that the minister's plan is simply that those who are growing tobacco should now switch to alternative crops and everything will be well

and good in the world.

The people at www.marijuana.com and those at www.hightimes.com are excited about this new plan, but it just is not good enough for Ontario's farmers.

KIDNEY HEALTH MONTH

Mr. Kuldip Kular (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I am pleased to rise today to acknowledge that March is Kidney Health Month and to applaud

the efforts of the Kidney Foundation of Canada.

Kidney failure affects an average of three Ontarians every day. Many may not even know that they have chronic kidney disease until it's too late, when dialysis

treatments or a kidney transplant become their only chance for survival. Diabetes and high blood pressure are among the leading causes of chronic kidney disease and yet are so often preventable,

and at the very least treatable, if they are caught early.

It's crucial that we prevent and, when necessary, treat diabetes and high blood pressure so that full kidney function can be preserved. During Kidney Health

Month, the kidney foundation will deliver a series of programs to educate Ontarians on kidney disease and, more specifically, its leading causes. Among some of the programs are public health

forums, community health fairs, speakers' bureaus and blood pressure screening clinics.

Through the efforts of the kidney foundation, I'm pleased to announce that over 250 people were tested in Brampton for high blood pressure, demonstrating their

commitment to taking a proactive approach to their health.

I congratulate the Kidney Foundation of Canada on providing their untiring service to my community and to the people of this province.

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I rise in the House today to call attention to something that was said this morning on the

Dean Blundell show on 102.1, The Edge, in Toronto. On his show this morning, radio host Dean Blundell expressed shock, saying, "Something has just happened here. A politician has kept his promise.

We have to applaud." Dean Blundell was referring to the fact that our leader, John Tory, showed up at The Edge this morning to make good on a promise that if he won the by-election in

Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, he would personally deliver breakfast to the early morning hosts.

It's a sad state of affairs indeed that after only 18 months in office, breaking promise after promise, the McGuinty government has succeeded in lowering the

expectations of Ontario to rock bottom. Well, folks, I've got good news for you: We have a new leader in Ontario, one who is not the kind of politician who is going to promise something, anything,

just to gain people's favour and get elected, then shrug it off after as electioneering. If John Tory says he will do something, he will do just that. Regardless of the nature of the promise, his

word can be counted on. That applies today and it applies tomorrow.

This is a refreshing change in the province of Ontario. Dean Blundell said, "I'm rooting for you and I want you to be our next Premier." Millions of Ontarians

are saying exactly that.

GAMBLING

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals sure have a strange way of helping problem gamblers with their gambling

problems. Today we discovered that the Premier's election Web site -- you remember it -- www.choosechange.ca -- has been transformed into an on-line casino.

Thanks to Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals, gambling addicts can get their betting fix with a click of a few keys: www.choosechange.ca. Visitors to

www.choosechange.ca have the option of playing Vegas Craps, European Roulette, video poker games like Aces and Faces Power Poker, Double Bonus Video Poker, video slots like Big Kahuna, progressive

games like Lotsa Loot, and real slot games like Jackpot Express, Reels Royce and Wheel of Wealth.

Our discovery of the transformation of the McGuinty Liberals' www.choosechange.ca Web site into an on-line casino comes on the same day as the Ontario Lottery

and Gaming Corp. holds a press conference here at Queen's Park, with the lacklustre snow job around this government's non-commitment to problem gaming.

Look, gambling addiction is a very serious matter. Problem gamblers need help to stop gambling, not help finding new ways to bet their money, relationships and

lives away. New Democrats are going to keep on fighting to ensure that problem gambling receives the attention it deserves, for a change.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): I'm very pleased to report to this House that today the region of York has approved expending $2 million to

promote Viva, the new name for the public transportation system in the region of York. Viva will start an ad campaign in a few days, with the intent to target our working and student population to

significantly increase ridership.

Viva will run 18 hours a day. Fares will remain the same, and the region of York ridership will be able to connect easily to Brampton public transit, three

subway stations and four GO links, as the region tries to create a transit culture. This is good news. This is a region that is trying its best to move forward.

The Viva ridership will enjoy bus stops that are outfitted with ticket-vending machines and satellite hookups that will inform waiting riders of the real

arrival time and when to expect the next bus. This will increase ridership and create a demand that only a subway can satisfy. The Spadina-York subway extension, the Yonge Street subway extension

as well as an extension into the town of Markham will service this need.

I wish to congratulate the government of the day, the region of York and our Minister of Transportation for their support of public transportation in the

region of York in the province of Ontario.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): It's a pleasure today to rise and tell the House about a reception I held in Oakville recently to honour

the tremendous efforts of the Canadian Mental Health Association in Halton region. The reception included board members; community mental health partners; councillor Keith Bird, the newly elected

police board chair in the region of Halton; and councillors Elgar and Sandelowsky from the town of Oakville.

I was pleased to have the opportunity to officially announce the funding in my riding of Oakville on behalf of the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care,

George Smitherman, because mental health has been ignored for far too long by previous governments. Halton region received an over $1-million investment by the McGuinty government to help more

people with mental illness in the region of Halton. Contrast this with the NDP cut to funding for mental health of over $23 million in 1992-93 and $42.4 million in 1994-95. And throughout their

entire eight years in office, the Tories failed to increase community-based mental health programs in this province. We invested over $1 million in the region of Halton. Overall, this government is

proud to have invested over $65 million this year in community-based mental health services. You can just imagine how pleased those people in the region of Halton are at this government's keeping

another promise.

MUNICIPAL FIRE SERVICES

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): I'm proud to stand up today to reiterate that the McGuinty government is making available a critical

$30-million one-time Ontario fire service training grant that will be distributed to 385 municipalities throughout Ontario. We are ensuring that our rural communities get a fair deal and the

investments they deserve. The funding will help fire departments meet their training needs and purchase new equipment. This significant funding is unprecedented. I'd like to commend Minister

Kwinter for his work on this file. It's the single largest contribution invested by a provincial government for fire services.

The era of Conservative slash-and-burn policies is over. The Conservatives used their infamous Magna budget to announce $40 million for fire departments. I'd

like to clarify something for the member from Simcoe North: Your government failed to follow through on your worthless IOU. The truth is, we have made the investment to train and help protect our

firefighters. We have followed through on our commitment to firefighters, and you did not.

Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association president Fred LeBlanc, who is a friend of mine, stated, "We are pleased with this announcement as it contains

the necessary flexibility to reflect the diversity of Ontario's fire service." He went on to say, "The Liberal government has listened to the members of the OPFFA regarding this much-needed funding

and has taken an important step to provide the financial opportunity to enhance current capabilities and introduce much-needed services to meet the public's expectations."

Ontario's firefighters know the difference between a Tory IOU and a Liberal bank deposit.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to move a motion without notice regarding private

members' public business.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): That requires unanimous consent. Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(d), the following changes be made to the ballot list of private members' public

business: Mr. Marchese and Mr. Prue exchange places in order of precedence such that Mr. Marchese assumes ballot item 75 and Mr. Prue assumes ballot item 62; and that pursuant to standing order

96(g), notice be waived for ballot item 60.

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. There is a disturbing case that happens to be in my riding of a man

charged in the first-degree murder of his wife who is set to be released on bail pending his trial. The man is alleged to have shot his wife in the school parking lot where she taught during the

course of the day. For the sake of concerns about public safety, will the Premier instruct his Attorney General to order the crown attorneys to immediately appeal this bail ruling?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): First of all, there is a publication ban in connection with this matter

and I know we have to be -- and I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition would want to be -- very, very careful in terms of how we address this particular matter. It is not my intention to instruct

the Attorney General to do anything in connection with this particular case. We leave it to the individuals involved, the crown attorneys involved, to take the necessary and appropriate steps.

Mr. Tory: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to handle the matter in exactly the manner that the Premier suggested. I went today to Bolton because,

as I mentioned, this community is in my constituency, and I took the opportunity to meet with some of the neighbours and people in that community living nearby the house where the man will be set

to return if the bail order is carried out. The house is one minute away from two schools, and literally seconds away from a public park.

The neighbours are not questioning the gentleman's right to a fair trial. What they are questioning is the fact that they don't have the right to know what

compelling information it was that caused an exception to be created in this case for someone charged with first-degree murder to be let out on bail and to return to his house during the course of

the time between now and his trial.

Would the Premier agree with me that in extraordinary cases like this where it's a first-degree murder charge and bail is granted, it is reasonable that the

public should have the right to know? You made reference to the publication ban. The public should have the right to know. The neighbours and the people in the community have the right to know the

information that led to that somewhat unusual order.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Again, I'm sensitive to the fact that a publication ban is in place. I have -- as has the Leader of the Opposition -- not

been made privy to the reasons behind that, to the arguments that were made. I can tell you that the crown did, in fact, oppose bail. This is not a matter in which we intend to jump in and to begin

to lend direction to the prosecution of individual criminal trials in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Tory: I say with respect, Premier, that that's not good enough, in this sense: What I asked you just a moment ago was whether you shared

my view that people who live in this neighbourhood, people who go to this school, people who are the next-door neighbours and who use the park that the man's back yard is connected to, that it's

reasonable for them to have an explanation as to the circumstances in which this bail was granted. Would you do anything you can, or ask your Attorney General to do anything he can, in order to

make sure that the public, the people in this neighbourhood, have the right to that information so they can know why an extraordinary order like this has been made? Will you do that?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Again, I think the member opposite is treading on thin ice. I think there is a clear separation between the proceedings in

this institution, the institution itself, and our courts, and I respect that distinction. I think it is inappropriate for us to speak about a