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

May 7, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-May-07 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 7 May 2009 Jeudi 7 mai 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FAMILY STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LE DROIT DE LA FAMILLE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONTROL

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

REMOTE DRUG DISPENSING

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

HYDRO TRANSMISSION LINE

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

DEFERRED VOTES

FAMILY STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LE DROIT DE LA FAMILLE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WORLD ASTHMA DAY

PROFESSIONAL HOCKEY FRANCHISE

MILTON DISTRICT HOSPITAL

CHILD CARE

CELEBRATE ONTARIO /

FÊTONS L'ONTARIO

PORK INDUSTRY

CHARITIES

CANADIAN TULIP FESTIVAL

PREMIER'S AWARDS FOR

TEACHING EXCELLENCE

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

AND SCHOOL BOARD

GOVERNANCE ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

SUR LE RENDEMENT DES ÉLÈVES

ET LA GOUVERNANCE

DES CONSEILS SCOLAIRES

CONGENITAL HEART DISEASE

AWARENESS DAY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE JOUR

DE LA SENSIBILISATION

À LA CARDIOPATHIE CONGÉNITALE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

SCHOOL BOARDS /

CONSEILS SCOLAIRES

PETITIONS

PROFESSIONAL HOCKEY FRANCHISE

AIR QUALITY

PROFESSIONAL HOCKEY FRANCHISE

PENSION PLANS

PROFESSIONAL HOCKEY FRANCHISE

PENSION PLANS

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

NEWS MEDIA

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

NEWS MEDIA

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GREATER TORONTO

AND HAMILTON AREA

TRANSIT IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT

DU RÉSEAU DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN

DE LA RÉGION DU GRAND TORONTO

ET DE HAMILTON

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FAMILY STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LE DROIT DE LA FAMILLE

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 6, 2009, on the motion for third reading of Bill 133,

An Act to amend various Acts in relation to certain family law matters and to repeal the Domestic Violence Protection Act, 2000 / Projet de loi 133, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne des questions de droit de la famille et abrogeant la Loi de 2000 sur la protection contre la violence familiale.

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

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: I rise today to speak to Bill 133, the Family Statute Law Amendment Act, 2009. Unfortunately, it's yet another missed opportunity to get something right, and especially to get something right for our children.

As my caucus colleague from Simcoe North so clearly illustrated yesterday, you know you have a problem when the Family Court judges, in a very rare act, have come out in writing against this bill. These are the people this province has put in place to uphold the law of the land. Not only that, but they see the ramifications of missed opportunities in front of them in court every single day. We can't afford to get these issues wrong, especially when we have an opportunity to fix them. It's our duty as legislators to create balanced legislation that will have a meaningful impact on the lives of Ontarians, vulnerable Ontarians.

In the case of Bill 133, the intent is to offer protection to these vulnerable citizens, and we have an obligation to get this duty right. The Liberal government has once again chosen to play partisan politics and shot down key amendments without any comment, I might say–they just voted against them—that would have offered children and youth the protection that they deserve. Call it what you will. The bottom line is, Bill 133 is a feel-good piece for the Liberal members only, and we do not share this enthusiasm.

This is just a first step, but once again, the devil is in the details. I would like to know how this will be enforced. We also need to ensure that the people we are trying to protect have access to the courts. We have a significant backlog in our court system today, and family courts are one of the most challenged. Enforcement, training and funding are all vital components of making this legislation work. There are problems with the delay throughout Ontario's justice system. Until that is resolved, how can we ensure that the best interests of our children are immediately addressed?

If you plan on hurrying this bill through without significant changes, in the effort to get your name in the paper as protecting our children, you are only going to harm the very people that you've set out to try to help in the first place.

There are serious concerns that this legislation has repealed the Domestic Violence Protection Act, 2000, which could have provided victims of abuse the opportunity to apply for an emergency intervention order. I'm going to remind my Liberal colleagues about a few simple facts.

First of all, we're all aware that 64% of female homicide victims are killed by their current or past partners. Eighty-seven per cent of sexual offenders are actually known to their victims. In Canada, four out of five people—four out of five people—murdered by their spouses are women murdered by men. Over the last five years, it is documented that 1.2 million Canadians were victims of domestic violence.

As a mother and a grandmother, when I read these statistics I am very, very upset. It appalls me. These numbers are much too high, and I am proud that my caucus colleague from Durham took action to address some of these issues in his bill, the Lori Dupont Act. Lori might be alive today if the ability to secure an emergency intervention order had existed at the time. Why on earth would this government try to undo a necessary tool in preventing deaths from domestic violence?

We have the opportunity now to give vulnerable people immediate access to court orders that would safeguard their lives and the lives of their loved ones. We can give vulnerable people immediate access to court orders. As well, applications for emergency intervention orders, as described in Bill 10, are intended to be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That's access to justice. That's what a democratic society has. That should be the focus of this legislation.

Ten years ago, Glen and Brenda Copithorn lost their daughter Jennifer in a tragic accident outside her workplace in Bowmanville. Her boyfriend was charged with first-degree murder. In 1999, the court of Ontario held an inquest into the murder of Arlene May by her boyfriend, Randy Iles. Arlene May was murdered in March 1996 by her former boyfriend, who then killed himself. Arlene's murder followed months of abuse, threats and harassment, which she reported to police on numerous occasions. At the time of the murder-suicide, her former boyfriend had been charged with several offences. They were against Arlene, and he was free on bail, and that prohibited him from having any contact with her.

Yet another familiar name: Gillian Hadley. Gillian was murdered in June 2000 by her husband, Ralph Hadley, from whom she was separated. He had assaulted her and her disabled child and had criminal charges pending against him. He had been charged with criminal harassment after stalking her following their separation. He was under a restraining order at the time of that murder.

Again, Lori Dupont, from Amherstburg, applied for a restraining order in April 2005 against Dr. Marc Daniel, an anesthesiologist with whom she had had a relationship until it ended badly. But the man contested the order, and a court date to hear the case was set a month after her death. What good was that? She was killed at her workplace, Hotel-Dieu Grace Hospital, on November 12, 2005. She left a daughter, aged 11, and her parents, Barb and John Dupont.

We must pay tribute to the hard work in our communities on a day-to-day basis. But we cannot expect our community partners to continue to deal with the aftermath of these tragedies when we have the opportunity right here and right now to get it right. The prevention of domestic violence is also a matter of education, awareness and support for victims, but most especially access to justice.

When this issue went through second reading in the Legislature, my colleagues and I did have some concerns about Bill 133, but we were prepared to support it in principle, because of the fact that it is dealing with some very significant issues that remain outstanding in family law, including child custody applications, domestic violence and, of course, pension splitting. But regrettably, the flaws in Bill 133 became apparent as soon as the various presenters came before committee at the hearings.

With respect to child custody and protection matters, we heard from numerous presenters that the amendments to the Children's Law Reform Act that were proposed by Bill 133 are unworkable. They place judges in an untenable position and may in fact work against the child's best interests in some cases. We heard from a number of experts on this issue, including individual family law practitioners, the Family Lawyers' Association and, most notably, a letter that was written to the committee by 12 Family Court judges. This is quite remarkable in itself.

I've never heard of this happening in committee before, where the judges themselves have actually been in touch directly with the committee. As my colleague read into the record, they discussed some of the specific concerns that they have and basically recommended that the fitness of an applicant for a custody application be reviewed by the Office of the Children's Lawyer. This is something that we believe is going to ensure that children are properly protected and that custody applications are only granted in the children's best interests. It's the children we're focusing on here.

The other point is that one wonders who was consulted in the course of drafting this Bill 133. Almost every person who presented indicated that they were concerned about the so-called protection measures—a point that was also expressed by the judges. Who did we talk to? With respect to our preferred choices and the amendments that we, in our caucus, have put forward, we would prefer to see the Office of the Children's Lawyer be prepared to do the investigations in this process and present a report to the judge.

The additional amendments that we have proffered really relate to a second alternative, which is to deal with what we already have and try to make that stronger. Certainly, the preferred course would be to have the Office of the Children's Lawyer involved. I think we need to be reminded about the importance of having the Office of the Children's Lawyer involved.

Katelynn Sampson was going into grade 3 at Parkdale public school. She had those chubby cheeks, if you remember her from the newscasts, and a beautiful smile. Around 2:30 on Sunday morning, August 4, Donna Irving, Katelynn's guardian, reported to 911 operators that seven-year-old Katelynn was choking on food. Well, when the police arrived at the apartment, they found Katelynn without any vital signs and pronounced her dead. After observing signs of obvious trauma to much of Katelynn's body, responding officers called homicide investigators. Donna Irving was arrested.

She was charged with second-degree murder after EMS personnel arrived. Homicide Detective Sergeant Steve Ryan told reporters, "It is probably the worst thing I've seen in 20 years of policing—the worst. Katelynn clearly had not choked. It was quite clear. I can't give you the specifics," he said, "just that she was assaulted throughout her entire [little] body."

An autopsy the following two days took far longer than expected because of "the nature and severity" of her injuries. Katelynn appeared to have sustained the many and complicated injuries over a period of time before she was murdered. Ontario's Child and Youth Advocate, Irwin Elman, is calling for an inquest into Katelynn's death. Mr.

Elman said, "I think that any time a child dies under these circumstances, we as a community, as a society, have something to learn." Even though an inquest would need to wait for resolution of the criminal case by the courts—which could take years, by the way—Elman said that the little girl's death should not "leave the public eye. We can't allow it to leave our memory." We also cannot be allowed to let this opportunity to prevent the tragedy that befell Katelynn to happen to yet other precious children.

With respect to this issue of domestic violence, I certainly do commend the government and the committee for taking on the issue of criminalizing the breach of restraining orders. That's a good thing. This is certainly commendable and something that is needed in order to prevent people being involved in domestic violence, predominantly women and children. However, the one thing we were not able to receive clarity on in the committee process was why: Why was it also necessary to repeal the Domestic Violence Protection Act?

To our understanding, there are complementary provisions, and certainly not mutually exclusive. I would advocate retaining the Domestic Violence Protection Act, in addition to the other changes that are being made.

With respect to the issue of pension-splitting, well, we certainly heard a wide divergence in opinion between the actuaries who presented and the pension administrators. There really seems to be a concern about fairness for the non-pension-holding spouse and the concern that one shouldn't just use one pension valuation when determining net family property for equalization purposes.

The suggestion was made by the actuaries—in fact, it was recommended by the Law Commission of Ontario—that two pension values be used: one for the vested amount, which would be included as the transfer amount, and the second one being the non-vested or contingent value, which would be used for the calculation of the net family property for equalization purposes. I would certainly suggest that we should make sure that the non-pension-holding spouse is fairly dealt with within the equalization process. Those are the types of amendments that we would prefer to see in this legislation.

The issues that are dealt with in our Family Court are not just legal ones; they have implications across all sectors, including our education system. In a study conducted by CAS in London—Middlesex between 1995 and 2001, it was found that children who were exposed to the abuse of women and were victims of abuse themselves were far more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD. What happens to these children who have no support at home and are also struggling at school?

I believe that these are the children who are getting left behind, the ones who are falling through the cracks because they don't have anyone in their corner. We need resources dedicated to these at-risk children, not a plan to put new light bulbs in our schools.

The study concluded that healthy child development is affected by the quality of the parent-child relationship. When the parents are dealing with a myriad of social and highly emotional issues, the child is the one who suffers the most. We can never underestimate what a child observes and feels. It is the children who are deprived of what they need and what they deserve in order to grow up with the same opportunities as their classmates.

Our system let Katelynn Sampson down miserably. Now it's our duty to stand up for Katelynn and those for whom we can try to prevent the same kind of incident. It is our duty to stand for these precious children who are vulnerable to abuse at the hands of people that they look to for protection and try to trust. We must not fail them. There is simply too much at stake here.

If there was ever a time to set our partisan politics aside, it is for Bill 133. So I ask the minister and I ask the whole team to take another look. Take another look at this amendment and put forward ideas that make the right decision here, because it's a lost opportunity if we don't.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Questions and comments?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I just wanted to thank the member for her very eloquent comments about the shortcomings of this bill. The reality that we face—and one that we faced yesterday afternoon when we had the presentations by the member from Welland and Mr.

Dunlop—is that this bill, for all the good intentions that I have no doubt existed on the part of those who were assigned to write it and those who shepherded it politically, will not prevent the sorts of tragic, horrible deaths that children will continue to face in a situation where there is not adequate provision for their protection, where there is not adequate provision for the sustaining of families and where there is not adequate provision for a system to review the state of children in the hands of the guardians into which their lives and fates are entrusted. This bill will not correct that.

The member went through the failings in the bill and the failings in the process of deciding this bill. This bill should have been reshaped by the commentary of many of those who came before the committee. In particular—I will refer to this in my remarks—it should have been reshaped by the commentary of the judges, who came to say, "What you have given us will not work. What we have is already fragile, and the outcome will not be good for those children of this province who will, in the end, have their lives—their fates—determined by the family law courts."

I appreciate the member standing up and going into detail about the failings of the process on the bill itself. I ask, because I know that time is brief, that the government, in its next step with this bill, which will inevitably pass, actually take a look at the larger picture and try to ensure that the loss of life that comes about because of this failing system is in some way substantially reduced.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Questions and comments?

Mr. David Zimmer: I just want to reply to two issues that have come up in the member from Burlington's comments.

First of all, on the issue of pension reform, we have heard from experts across the field: the family law bar, the litigants themselves who have been involved in the process and the Law Commission of Ontario. There is a sense that one of the issues that has been responsible for delay in the resolution of these family court matters is the husband and wife—partners—getting involved in a very complicated technical dispute about the valuation of pensions.

We have heard that the parties, more often than not, have to engage not only the lawyer representing them in the family law matter but a lawyer who has a special expertise in pensions—a pension lawyer. The pension lawyer, in turn, then finds it necessary to engage accountants and actuaries. This drives up the cost of resolution of these issues around division of the pension.

This law has a

section on the valuation of pensions. It's a very clear, crisp direction about how to value the pension, who gets what portion of the pension and when. The testimony we heard at the hearings was that this process of clarifying, of giving clear direction on when and how to divide a pension, is going to do two things: It's going to speed up the proceedings and it's going to make them a lot cheaper. This is good.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Further questions and comments?

The member for Burlington for a two-minute wrap-up.

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: I want to thank the member from Toronto—Danforth and the member from Willowdale.

I get it; I understand that this is a balancing act and that there are a lot of things that need to be satisfied. This is extremely complicated, and we're talking about people's lives at the worst time in their life, at a time when some of them have been through violent behaviour within their homes. Some of them have been through the ultimate violent behaviour, and members of their family have been murdered. I understand that; I get it.

But do you know what I don't understand? I don't understand why we have a committee hearing and, in the face of good advice from people who deal with this every single day—Family Court judges, the people themselves who have been through the violent acts and are telling you they're bleeding of their own experiences—we can't understand that and be able to weave it into amendments that really make a difference to people's lives and people's safety.

After hearing from these folks who have suffered—and some of them have, as I say, gone through murders in their families—we're putting emphasis on pension-splitting. What is this about? That's the predominant message from the Liberal side: "We have heard about pension-splitting." Yes, it's part of the act, and it is a component that's important to have straightened out in some way, but my God, we're talking about people being murdered. Where's that part of this? What about the protection and the safety and the peace of mind for the people? What about reducing the risk of more murders of vulnerable children? Let's think about this, folks, and let's do the right thing.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Further debate?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I appreciate the opportunity. Speaker, as you would well know, and as other members of the Legislature would know, this is not my area of expertise. I haven't spent a lot of time in my life sorting through legal issues, court issues, family law issues. I've had an opportunity, in the course of this debate, to listen to a few speakers talk about the issue before us. I had a chance to listen to the member from Welland yesterday, I had a chance to listen to my colleague Mr.

Dunlop, and I had a chance to read through, in its entirety, the letter to the committee that was considering this act written by a number of sitting judges who deal with family law.

For those who are watching today who have followed this bill and are not familiar with the law, not familiar with the legal process and how matters are argued and how, in theory, we sort out what's real and what's not real, it's a bit sobering, actually, to come into the process and get the opinion of those who are actually charged with trying to ensure that children are properly protected, so that children, be they two, four, eight or 10, are seen to have their lives and their futures protected by the world of those in their adult years who properly, correctly, ethically have responsibility for them.

It was pretty clear to me on reading the letter from the judges, it was pretty clear to me in talking to the member from Welland, pretty clear in listening to the member from Burlington, that we have a system here that will continue to fail and will continue to fail children. It will doom more children either to lives that are extraordinarily unpleasant, dreary or painful, or to death. You can't deal with the problems that we have before us in a small way because the problems are very far-reaching.

I want to say that the problems reach far beyond the courts, and they do. If families don't have adequate incomes, the internal pressures that creates are extraordinary. They cause anger, and they can cause violence, drug addiction and mental illness, all of which erode the basis for the families, may pull those families apart, may blow them apart, putting children in a position where they have to be assigned a guardian.

If, when those conditions blow a family apart and there's conflict over the custody of a child, the system that's in place is not adequate to actually represent the interests of the child and not adequate to actually put the facts before someone who can make a considered judgment, then that child's life, both in terms of living and dying and in terms of how they will proceed in the future, is thrown in the balance.

I was trying to think of a way of expressing it that would be clearer. I'm not sure if this will be clear enough, but if you throw a whole bunch of children into the deep end of a swimming pool every day and you have a few lifeguards, some of the kids will struggle to the edge of the pool and pull themselves out, some will be saved by the lifeguards and some will fall to the bottom. If you do that every day, you will continue to have the survivors, you will continue to have those who are saved and you will continue to have those who will drown.

That, unfortunately, is the situation that we are in. We don't have a situation that stops the kids from being thrown right off into the deep end. Poverty, lack of programs for mental illness, lack of programs for addiction, lack of programs to stop violence and sexism: All those things set the pre-conditions for blowing families apart and throwing children deep into the water. You have to deal with those things. That's not really being dealt with—no, I shouldn't have said "not really"; that is not being dealt with.

So we fall back on the next line of defence, which should be a properly functioning system of custodianship for children and a properly functioning system of determining who should be looking after children, under what conditions they will be looked after and how those custodians will be supervised, as has been said in the course of the hearings on this act.

A presentation was made by 12 sitting judges in the family court system. I recognized only one name on that list, a judge whom I had met in her former life as a lawyer, who was a very balanced, sane, compassionate person who, I think, would probably be doing the best she could and frankly would not be a person who would commonly write in to legislation, just because judges generally are not meant to write legislation.

I would say that she and the others were wise to point out to us, the legislators, that there are substantial problems that are not going to be dealt with by this legislation and there are substantial problems in the world beyond legislation that, if not dealt with, will continue to result in the loss of life and the loss of futures for many, many children.

For those who are watching, you should know that their letter is probably available on the public record, but I want to read some of what they had to say and comment on it, as was done by Mr. Garfield Dunlop yesterday. I'm not going to read their whole thing, but there were a few points they made that really illustrated the fundamental weaknesses that we face here. The judges write:

"We reject the view, advanced by some, that our courts are so over loaded that judges are too busy to address this critical issue in each case. This is not our experience. However, in a court system which is critically under-populated by lawyers, the task of judges becomes more difficult.

"Today Family Court judges in Ontario are expected to make crucial legal decisions affecting the well-being of children in an environment which has been degraded by the disappearance of family lawyers. This problem is likely most acute in the provincial family courts, where parties of modest means come to seek a solution of their urgent family problems. These litigants cannot afford lawyers and cannot qualify for legal aid. They cannot afford child psychologists, custody assessors, parenting coordinators and private mediators."

In other words, the vast bulk of the population who are working at jobs in retail or service, perhaps grandparents on retirement income, are people who come to court with no professional backup, trying to present evidence before a judge in a situation which may or may not be contested, and a judge trying to figure out what is real and what is not real.

For those who have ever gone through any legal proceedings—and I had an opportunity when I was a property manager in a life a long time ago. For those who are not schooled as lawyers, when you first present your story to a lawyer, let me tell you that a large part of what you present doesn't really reflect on the facts and the matters that are relevant to a judge. Because when you talk, you talk about all the things that are important to you emotionally, as well as intellectually; what's on your mind in a variety of ways.

Legally there's a far narrower field of facts and matters that are of consequence to a judge and the decisions that are made by a judge. For those of us who are unschooled in the law, presenting an argument to a judge is very different from presenting an argument to a friend. You can have a huge negative impact on your own interests if you don't present an argument properly.

That is why there is a whole profession of people whose job it is to go out, sort through statements that are made, pull out the facts that are of consequence, look for facts in the arguments of others and present them to a judge in a coherent way so that hopefully—hopefully—an intelligent decision is made about the matter before us.

It's quite correct, what the judges say. You talk to lawyers in this city who have done work on legal aid—the money is very scanty, there's no evidence of any change of that, and thus you have a situation where very few people are assisted in what are fundamental decisions about the fate of their families and their children.

The judges are saying, "You can have this act, you can have us do a lot more, but we're telling you right now that if you don't have the lawyers and you don't provide access for the families to qualified professionals who can assess issues around psychology and around the state of the family, then you are not going to get good decisions," and the judges are right.

So no matter what good intent there may have been with the law—there may have been good intent—unless that problem is dealt with, even an excellent law is going to find itself badly applied because there aren't the supports and the frameworks necessary to deliver justice in a court setting. That is a fundamental flaw with the situation before us.

The judges go on to say, "Even if they"—referring to those who come, the mothers and fathers, those who are looking after the children who have been cast into chaos by a family coming apart—"did have access to these resources, the child psychologists, the custody assessors, the litigants in our courts may have the kind of problem that cannot be resolved through mediation and parent information programs. They may be isolated for cultural or language reasons. Their partner may have substance abuse or mental health issues. There may be violence in the home.

These litigants need to go to court because they need a court order to protect themselves and their children, and they have the right and even the obligation to do so to protect their children's best interests." Again the judges are saying that there's a huge issue of supports, social services, that have to be out there if you're actually going to protect these families and these children. This act is not going to address that. I can assure anyone who is watching or listening today, and I can assure you, Speaker, that the budget of this government that is going to come forward is not going to address this either.

The judges go on to talk about duty counsel, because in many, many cases, people are not going to be in a position to have someone represent them, and duty counsel will not be there.

Speaker, do we have a quorum?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Is there a quorum present?

The Acting Clerk-at-the-Table (Katch Kotch): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Call in the members.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Lisa Freedman): A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Thank you. The member for Toronto—Danforth may continue.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The judges talking about the legal services available to those who come before the court note that those who don't qualify for legal aid may qualify for duty counsel. They say that duty counsel are people who "have inadequate time to interview" those who come before the court and "to ensure ... their cases can be presented properly to the court. Duty counsel do not assist in the preparation of motions and affidavits. Duty counsel do not represent parties at motions or trials.

Pleadings are drafted by volunteer law students, or by self-represented parties, who have limited knowledge of the evidentiary requirements of relevance and reliability. Duty counsel do not maintain files. A party coming to court twice will likely see two different duty counsel. There is no continuity."

At every point, the Family Court judges have made it very clear that those who come before them are not adequately or properly represented, even in a situation where we are dealing with a simple mediation process. We're not dealing with matters of no consequence, and we're not dealing with some sort of specially modified world of law that doesn't have rules of evidence. We are dealing with law courts operating within the framework of law that demand presentation of evidence and arguments that are of substance.

And yet those whose lives are dependent on the outcome of these decisions don't have representation and basically try to muddle through as best they can to get the results that may protect them and their children. The judges make it clear that the system that is in place does not protect families and does not protect children.

Again, if this was the most wonderful legislation in the world and we had a system behind it that was so threadbare, so lacking in substance, so lacking in support for the families and the children whose lives depend on the outcome, even if it was the most wonderful bill in the world, it would not protect the people whose lives are dependent upon this system. It is not an excusable, it is not a pardonable, it is not an explainable situation. It is abhorrent.

It is one that should be rejected—this system within which children are thrown into the deep end and those who can, save themselves; some are saved by the occasional intervention; and some fall to the bottom of the pool, not to be recovered.

They go on to talk about the lack of information presented to the courts because there isn't representation on both sides. They talk about the need for independent advice to the courts, and say that you can provide judges with tons of information, unprocessed and raw, and they will not be able to get through it and figure out—they, in their very narrow range of decision-making and assessment, need information that has been reviewed, condensed and brought forward. That will not be addressed in this act.

I have made the points I want to make. Children in this province and families in this province will continue to face profound problems. Children's futures will be lost, and children's lives will be lost; this act will not correct that. The issue has to be addressed on a much larger basis, and it is time for this government to do that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Questions and comments?

Mr. David Zimmer: I want to respond to the two previous speakers, the NDP speaker and the Conservative speaker, who seem to be of the view that the legislation does not do enough to protect women from violence. Here is what the experts in the field say. These are the people who are on the front line on a day-to-day basis dealing with violence against women. It's important to consider what the experts think, not what the Conservative member from Burlington and the previous speaker from the NDP think.

Pamela Cross, who is a legal consultant for violence-against-women issues and an advocate, says: "Making restraining orders available to more women who live in an environment of violence is an important step forward in both preventing and responding to violence against women."

Here's what Heather McGregor, CEO of the YWCA—an expert dealing with it on a day-to-day basis, who provides emergency shelter to 547 women and their children each year who are fleeing violence—says: "This package of reforms will ensure that more of these women are able to keep themselves and their children safe" and live "lives free from violence." That's the opinion of someone who is dealing with this issue on a day-to-day basis.

Here is what Shahina Siddiqui, the executive director of the Islamic Social Services Association, says: "We welcome this announcement and support the government's commitment to ensuring the rights and safety of women and children in Ontario."

There are several other quotes from these people who are on the front lines on a day-to-day basis. They're actually dealing with these acts of violence. They think it's good legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Further questions and comments?

M me France Gélinas: I would like to recognize some of the comments that were made by my colleague from Toronto—Danforth. First of all, he recognized that New Democrats want to protect women from violence, and they want to protect children and whole families from violence and hardship also. When a bill is before this House that attempts to do this, it is certainly something that is first greeted with enthusiasm. We believe in supporting strong and healthy families that work and live in strong and healthy communities.

Any work that this legislation could do to achieve this goal is something that the NDP would support. Then he went into some of the details of what's in the bill and details of what is not in the bill, that would fail to do what it sets out to do; that is, to protect women from violence and keep children who are in harm's way from getting hurt in sometimes messy processes.

He focused a little bit on the fact that the Domestic Violence Protection Act, 2000, is being repealed with this act. While some will tell you that it was not a perfect bill, it certainly was put into place to do exactly what it wanted to do: to protect people from domestic violence. It's one thing to have a bill put forward in this House; it's something else to see how it will play out. I would say that my colleague from Toronto—Danforth explained that clearly in his presentation this morning.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Further questions and comments?

Interjection.

Mr. Mike Colle: You can't do it twice.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): You can't do it twice, sir.

Further questions and comments?

Seeing none, is there further debate?

Mr. Mike Colle: Doesn't he have a wrap-up?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Oh, would you like a two-minute response?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Yes. Why not?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Why not? Good idea.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I can see that my fellow legislators would have been deeply disappointed if I had not responded—deeply, deeply.

I want to speak very briefly to the comments of the member from Willowdale, who quoted a number of people who work in the field, protecting women against violence.

I'd like to say to you, Speaker, and to the member from Willowdale that it is very clear from reading what has been presented to us that this act, even if it was wonderfully written, will not do what we, as individuals in this House, want done in a context in which the social and legal services are not there to protect the interests of women and children. It will not stem the violence that goes on. There are far larger social steps that have to be taken. There are substantial steps that have to be taken in the administration of law and the support of families involved in the legal process.

Sometimes legislation can be a good thing, and sometimes legislation can simply be wallpaper. It can be a nice coating on the face of a structure that itself is not sound and will not hold up a building.

Whether this legislation is good or bad—others have talked in far more detail about the precise content of the legislation—the situation in which women, children and families find themselves in this province is often one of misery, and until you address the larger issues, the legislation will be largely irrelevant.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Is there further debate?

Mr. Bentley has moved third reading of Bill 133. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

I heard a no.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

I believe the ayes have it.

This vote will be deferred until after question period.

Third reading vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Orders of the day.

Hon. John Wilkinson: The government has no further business this morning until question period.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): This House stands recessed until question period at 10:30.

The House recessed from 0953 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I would ask all to join me in welcoming the staff and students from G.L. Roberts Collegiate and Vocational Institute in my riding. They'll be arriving very shortly and very much enjoying question period.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Today it's certainly a great pleasure for me to welcome to the Legislature two of our summer students, Monique Habib from Brock University and Roberto Walcott from Wilfrid Laurier University.

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: It's my pleasure to introduce Ross Davies, who is attending question period today. He'll be very well-informed when he leaves here today.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: In the west members' gallery we have Edwina McGroddy, executive director for the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers, and joining her shortly will be a constituent of mine, Angela Shama, the CEO of the same society.

Mr. David Zimmer: I'd like to welcome Cathy Bailey, the chair of the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario, and all of the other certified management accountants who are here today in the Legislature and throughout Queen's Park. There will be a reception in room 230 after question period. I urge all of you to attend.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the member from Kitchener—Conestoga and page Lindsay Eenkooren, we'd like to welcome, from the McQuarrie Enrichment Centre, Lindsay's grade 7 class and their teacher, Susan Watt, joining us in the public gallery today. Welcome.

A happy birthday to the Minister of Small Business and Consumer Services. Happy birthday, Mr. Takhar.

I'd like to welcome, from Aylmer in my riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London, Abe and Anita Harms. Abe is a tireless advocate for the Mennonite community and is seated in the Speaker's gallery. Abe, Anita, welcome to Queen's Park today.

Not to feel left out, I'd like all members to wish the honourable member from Halton, Mr. Chudleigh, a happy birthday today as well.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Minister of Labour, and it's regarding the Ruby Dhalla affair and his contention that he did absolutely nothing after hearing horror stories from two nannies about the treatment they received at the hands of Ms. Dhalla, a Liberal member of Parliament. Minister, that's your story, and even your Premier has difficulty buying it when he says there's "a perception issue" here. Your defence is apparently that you are totally incompetent and lacking in moral fibre, and the fact that a prominent Liberal was involved in the accusations had nothing to do with your lack of action. Are you sticking to that story today?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: In my round tables, I've heard many, many stories from women who were mistreated by unscrupulous agencies and employers. That is why we set up a dedicated 1-800 hotline for live-in caregivers: so that they can call and they can learn about their rights and how to file a complaint. It's why we set up a dedicated enforcement unit that's behind that 1-800 line, to be able to investigate those complaints. It's why we're moving forward with legislation that will, for the first time in this province, ban placement fees and further strengthen protections for vulnerable live-in caregivers.

These people take care of our most precious resource—our children, our loved ones—and that is what we're doing: taking care of them.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: That's more stonewalling.

Minister, I trust you can appreciate that your negligence, your failure to act, raises serious questions about a deliberate cover-up, an attempt to keep allegations of—

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My God. I will withdraw—an attempt to keep under wraps an abuse by a prominent member of the Liberal Party. It's difficult to believe that alarm bells didn't go off when you heard Ms. Dhalla's name.

Minister, did you and the Minister of Education discuss this issue after the meeting? Is that when you decided to ignore the plight of these women?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I thank the member for the question. The member should know full well himself that the last thing I would want to do is jeopardize an investigation. As an elected official, my involvement in a specific claim could do just that. These investigations are pursued by independent officials, and I think that is the best approach and the right way to move forward.

As Minister of Labour, I've been holding round tables to inform my ministry officials and myself of what is happening out there with this federal live-in caregiver program. We do hear about the exploitation and how this program is completely broken. This is the information that my officials are using as we put together our piece of legislation. But I would hope that that—

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: As a minister of the crown, you have a special duty, and you've clearly failed that here, if not worse. You've failed these two women, either on the basis of incompetence or a deliberate effort to put this under wraps for a Liberal ally, and today you are stonewalling legitimate and valid questions about your performance as a minister.

I don't ask this lightly, having stepped aside myself: Will you step aside, support an investigation and do the right thing?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: After that particular round table, some of those live-in caregivers shared their stories with me that they would be meeting with Mr. Kenney the next evening. I urged them to share their stories so that he could understand how flawed this federal program is.

Allegations by several of the live-in caregivers have been made at meetings that I've attended. I repeatedly urged those live-in caregivers, those nannies, to call my ministry, to call the toll-free number, to call the hotline, where we have trained officials to be able to deal with their cases, to be able to provide them information. These are impartial professionals, officials, who are there to do that work. So I urge anybody who feels that they have been mistreated, unjustly treated, to call the 1-800 hotline and speak with ministry officials.

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Back to the Minister of Labour: This minister and his colleagues like to portray themselves as the defenders of the downtrodden, but we all know that actions mean more than words. In this case, the action was to protect the queen of mean, a Liberal ally, and give these victims, immigrant women who may have been victims of serious human rights abuses at her hands—what did you do? You gave them a 1-800 number.

I ask you again, Minister: Who did you talk to about this? You can't get anyone to believe that you heard serious allegations about a prominent member of the Liberal Party and then simply went home and went to bed. Is that what you want us to believe?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: As Minister of Labour, I must be impartial and I must be fair. The last thing I want to do is jeopardize an investigation by providing information. It's important that a minister in a regulatory ministry is not seen to be participating in an investigation. The federal minister himself said on CTV News, "The allegations relate to multiple different statutes at different levels of government. There's no single, one-stop shopping to deal with these kinds of offences. It is kind of complex. I am informed by my officials that they're aware of the allegations of violation of

section 124 of the Immigration Act. They're looking at that, of course. And as a minister"—this is the federal minister—

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: This minister wants to suggest, as an example, that if the Solicitor General at a meeting heard allegations about criminal behaviour, he wouldn't report them to his ADM of policing or his deputy minister or the police service in the area responsible. Of course he would.

This minister hasn't done his job. I want to touch on the role of the education minister and her interaction with the minister on this, because she's complicit in this as well. Minister, did Minister Wynne confront you after the meeting and encourage you to report these cases of abuse? Is that why she's getting off with a free pass today and you're under the gun in this alone because of this shameful failure to act?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Just to get on the record again, this is from Minister Kenney in regard to a interview he had with CTV News, that when they're looking at

section 124 of the Immigration Act, "they're looking at that, of course. And as a minister, I'm keeping my hands off from any such investigation." But one caregiver shared her story as reported by the Philippine Times. It was a story of abuse. What did Minister Kenney do with that information? He certainly didn't pick up the phone and call my office or report it to my ministry. According to the Philippine Times, another caregiver, Maribel Beato, had come prepared to tell her story but was told by the minister's staff that only one caregiver could speak—only one caregiver. She was not allowed to share her story with Minister Kenney. That is very—

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: That's disgusting tripe from this minister. In Jim Coyle's column today in the Star he reminds us of Minister Wynne's requirement that school staff report serious incidents. Surely she couldn't be two-faced enough not to follow her own dictum.

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: —a new dictionary in this place. I withdraw.

She must have urged you to take action, and you failed. So again your credibility is coming into question, and her absence today is even more understandable. Again, Minister, what advice did the Minister of Education give you regarding the abuse allegations regarding a Liberal ally?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would just remind all honourable members of the tradition within this place of not making reference to a member's attendance.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Again, as reported by the Philippine Times, one caregiver came forward to be able to share her story to Minister Kenney and his staff that were there, and she was not allowed to do so. She was very disappointed that her voice was not heard and the voices of other caregivers were not heard in that forum. That's the approach of the federal government. They want to hear from only one person, and one person only.

Our approach has been to reach out to the community, to meet with all caregivers, all advocacy groups and all stakeholders to hear from them, to be able to provide and put the protections in place to help and support them. That's what we are doing at the Ministry of Labour. We are doing it in a fair, impartial way by providing the resources necessary to follow through with—

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

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of Labour. This morning, Ontarians are having serious doubts about the judgment and the competence of this minister, a minister who is responsible for protecting the rights of all Ontario workers. I have a few questions for him this morning, but I want to start with a very, very basic one.

When he met with caregivers at the constituency office of the Minister of Education on April 25, what did he say after at least two of them made serious allegations of employer abuse and harassment?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Again to the member opposite, the last thing that I would ever want to do is jeopardize an investigation and provide any incorrect information to our officials. What we did is provide the access—immediately—so that those caregivers who felt that they had been abused or that an injustice had taken place could call. I know that the members opposite don't want me, as a minister, to be directing investigations.

Think about what they would say if I had done that, if I had done what they are asking me to do in other situations. What if I read a newspaper story about an opposition MPP mistreating their employees? What if I then asked my staff to investigate that matter that we all read about? That—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: On April 25, at least two caregivers made serious allegations of employer abuse and harassment at the hands of an employer whom this minister knows well. The minister's response was to give them a toll-free number. He didn't follow up with his deputy the first thing Monday morning so that ministry officials could immediately begin investigating the complaints. That would have been the obvious course of action for a Minister of Labour to pursue: send it to your deputy and have the investigation begin. Instead, he gives out a toll-free number.

Why didn't this Minister of Labour do the right thing and immediately order his officials to investigate these serious cases of abuse?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: At all the round tables that I participated in where we've gathered information, we have heard many stories of abuse from many, many caregivers. Most of the allegations stem back to a flawed, broken federal program.

But I say again to the leader of the third party over there: What if I read in a newspaper about an MPP here in this chamber who had, in some way, abused her workers? I ask that leader of the third party: What would that leader want to happen? What does that leader feel that the Ministry of Labour should do?

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The point is that this Minister of Labour failed to take action expected of a minister on a direct information complaint about abuses in the workplace. He failed. He failed to instruct his officials to follow up on the complaints that he heard on April 25.

In the opinion of New Democrats, that represents a complete dereliction of duty on the part of the minister of the crown who has the ministerial responsibility and the ethical obligation to protect all workers in this province. How could this minister have been so hopelessly derelict in carrying out his responsibilities?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: With all the round tables and consultations we've been having with live-in caregivers, with nannies, with stakeholders and with advocacy groups, we have heard about many disturbing, alarming stories. With all of them, immediately, I have encouraged them to call our ministry to speak with dedicated, highly trained, professional officials who can deal with their claims or provide them information and support and help them through the process. That is what a Minister of Labour should do: work with the community impartially, in a fair manner.

As Minister of Labour, in no way would I want to jeopardize any of those allegations or claims that have come forward at those round tables—

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

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Back to the Minister of Labour: The minister's lack of action on this is nothing short of scandalous. He has failed miserably to uphold his ministerial responsibility, not to mention his ethical obligation to take these workers seriously and have their allegations investigated promptly and thoroughly. How can he possibly continue to defend this gross dereliction of duty?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: The Ministry of Labour, the McGuinty government, have been moving forward on so many fronts to help vulnerable workers in the province of Ontario. We just recently passed the temporary help agencies legislation in this House. We have increased the minimum wage—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister of Transportation.

Minister of Labour?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: When it comes to the live-in caregiver program, this flawed federal program, we are moving forward to bring protections to workers in Ontario in every way that we can. That's why we have a dedicated professional team behind a 1-800 hotline that has been well publicized within the community, at all our libraries. All MPPs' offices have received a letter from my office with the—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This minister's attitude speaks to a government that just doesn't care about the plight of Ontario workers. It speaks to a labour minister who fails to enforce his own laws.

This minister is responsible for the administration of the Employment Standards Act, but he seems totally unaware of that fact. He has lost the confidence not only of those caregivers that he met in the office of Education Minister Kathleen Wynne, but all workers across Ontario. Will he now do the right thing and resign immediately?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: My job, as Minister of Labour, is to protect all workers in Ontario. That is what I will continue to do, that is what I will champion, and I will do that in an impartial and fair manner. I would hope that member would understand the responsibility of this position, and her position, and know that that would be the right way to approach this.

The real crux of the matter is a flawed, broken federal program. When we go out into the community and I listen to these very alarming, disturbing, concerning stories from live-in caregivers, from nannies, that's what they have shared with me. That's why, over a month ago, I picked up the phone and called—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: There can be no excuses here. This minister has failed miserably to act. Those caregivers deserve a labour minister who is up to the job of protecting their rights, not one who casually dismisses their concerns by offering up a toll-free number.

His conduct is shameful and unbecoming of a minister of the crown. It is time for him to go. He needs to resign. Why won't he do that immediately?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: It is unfortunate that that member does not agree with having a dedicated team behind that 1-800 number to deal with live-in caregivers, with nannies, so that they can call and make a claim. We have these highly trained professionals to provide information and help them work through that process.

I will continue to meet with stakeholders and continue to—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): You have 10 seconds to respond.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Again, that 1-800 number is working very effectively. In the last two weeks, we've received 120 calls. Three claims have been made—

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

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Back to the Minister of Labour. I think that people viewing the proceedings today recognize that the minister has failed to answer every question posed by both opposition parties, hiding behind jeopardizing an investigation.

I want to go back to a very simple question that has nothing to do with an investigation. After this meeting, when you heard these accusations against a Liberal member of Parliament, did you contact anyone to make them aware of this—the Premier's office, Ruby Dhalla, anyone?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I would like to refresh the member's memory here from something he said in Hansard on April 2, 1997. What the member said was, "I think it's quite appropriate for the Solicitor General, whoever occupies this office, not to be involved in those kinds of investigations." I think he was right when he made that point, and that is what I'm doing: I am working in an impartial, fair way.

We have to ensure there is impartiality in every case. What we do is provide people information to be able to file that complaint, to have support so that they know that their complaints, their claims, are being addressed in a very serious manner. I can assure all of those who call our office that they are being addressed—

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: The Liberal Party had different standards for ministerial conduct when they were sitting in opposition. Now, clearly, that standard is in the gutter.

I believe the minister deliberately sat on this because it involved a prominent Liberal, and whether or not the Minister of Education—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd just remind the honourable member of imputing motive against the member. Please continue.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Whether or not the Minister of Education was involved, or the Premier's office, we're not getting any answers today, but if concrete actions were taken to cover up this matter, that raises the spectre of criminality—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd just remind the honourable member and would ask him to withdraw that comment, please.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I withdraw that.

If there were concrete actions taken to keep this under wraps, that clearly raises the spectre of criminality and suggests, Premier or Minister, to anyone that this cries out for public investigation, and you should be stepping aside while that's conducted.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: An opportunity again to refresh the member's memory, from October 29, 1996—here's what he had to say: "I am not about to direct the police with respect to how they conduct an investigation." Again, he was right then.

Here's where his party has been wrong. They pretend to care about the minimum wage, but at least two of their leadership candidates are saying that minimum wage for our most vulnerable workers should be cut. They pretend to care about hours of work, but one of their leadership candidates wants to force people to work 60-hour workweeks. They pretend to care about labour enforcement officers, but in this particular case, the labour critic has said that our enforcement—

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

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of Labour. On April 25, Minister Fonseca met with a group of live-in caregivers in the constituency office of Kathleen Wynne. After hearing allegations of flagrant abuse perpetrated by a federal Liberal MP, his only response, as we've heard, was to defer the nannies to a 1-800 number. Yet according to the government's own website, the 1-800 nanny hotline did not begin receiving calls until April 27, 2009—two days later. He didn't even have a 1-800 number to refer them to. This is buck-passing of the most serious order. Why did this minister defer the compelling allegations made by live-in caregivers to a number that wasn't even active?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I thank the member for the question—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I thank the member for the opportunity to share with this House that in that meeting, at that round table where we met, one of the main initiatives that we were launching was the information that the number, the 1-800 hotline dedicated to live-in caregivers, would be live at 8:30 on Monday morning. That was shared with all the live-in caregivers.

If the member had read the Toronto Star, the Toronto Star was very appreciative that we moved so quickly with that 1-800 number and a dedicated team behind that number to be able to address those concerns and to be able to take claims from any of the live-in caregivers who felt that they were discriminated against. It went online at—

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: The fact is that even deferring to a 1-800 number is not enough, and the minister knows this, even if it had been operative, which it clearly was not. On February 18, 2009, you stated in this House that, "It is also important that when people are working, they are doing so in environments where employees are treated with dignity and respect." Yet when this minister heard brazen acts of employment standards violations, he did absolutely nothing—worse than nothing; he referred them to a non-existent number.

Given this minister's inability to enforce his own employment standards, will he now do the one honourable thing left and resign?

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock for a second. I don't appreciate the chuckles from the gallery behind me.

Minister?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I say to the member, you weren't there; I was, and I explained to the live-in caregivers their rights as workers in Ontario. We went through a fact sheet of all their rights and how to be able to immediately access their complaints, any of the claims that they would want to put forward. That's what we're doing by reaching out into the community, by distributing information and by ensuring that we have a dedicated team there to help these vulnerable workers.

I know the member agrees that the Minister of Labour should be impartial and fair and should allow for any complaints, any claims, that want to be made to be made with ministry officials who are impartial and can do their job. I think that member wouldn't want it any other way.

INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONTROL

Mrs. Liz Sandals: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. The headlines over the past couple of weeks have been dominated by news of the global outbreak of H1N1 influenza. There seem to be constant updates about this virus as new facts and information are being discovered all the time.

During the first week of the outbreak, when this virus was known as swine flu, we were constantly reassured by officials at all levels of government, as well as international organizations, that consuming pork is safe. Now the WHO is issuing words of caution, saying that people should be cautious with the handling of pork products and that pork from sick animals or animals found dead should not be consumed.

My question to the minister: Is pork safe to eat?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I thank the honourable member from Guelph. This is a very important question, and I'm sure that all members of this Legislative Assembly would join me in confirming and affirming pork producers in Ontario and in doing all that we can, in our roles as MPPs, in our ridings to say to the people we represent that Ontario pork is safe to eat.

I think it's also important today that I would clarify—I have here, from the World Health Organization, a statement that was issued on May 7. It indicates that "to avoid any misunderstanding," the WHO "would like to reissue their joint statement...." In this statement, they indicate, "Influenza viruses are not known to be transmissible to people through eating processed pork or other food products derived from pigs."

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Liz Sandals: Thank you, Minister, on behalf of Ontario's farmers, for making that very clear.

Despite all the assurances that pork is, in fact, safe, many of Canada's trading partners have taken action and banned pork and pork products from North America. These bans on pork have had a negative impact on the market price for hogs, and producers here in Ontario—whom apparently the opposition don't care about—are concerned that demand for their product may be affected. Could the minister please update this House on precautions that have been taken in Ontario to ensure that Ontario pork remains safe?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is working very closely with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency as it monitors signs of illness in the pork herd. Also, OMAFRA distributed on April 27 information to our industry partners, pork producers and veterinarians about the virus and what they should be looking for. We are also working very closely with the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, with the CFIA, as I indicated, and our industry partners. As well, we have alerted the Animal Health Laboratory in Guelph that they should be monitoring the situation.

To encourage testing and help with provincial surveillance, OMAFRA will cover the laboratory costs for any influenza tests from the pork herd. Typically, a fee has been charged for this, but my ministry has waived—

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

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Back to the Minister of Labour: This has been a shameful performance on his behalf today, and hopefully we can get some answers.

The Premier was at a press scrum this morning, and he said: "It's the responsibility of women dealing with this incident themselves to take up their cases with the proper authorities." In other words, being in the presence of a minister shouldn't be an expectation that action will be taken. When victims are in front of a minister, they should have no expectation: "Go to the proper authorities if you want action taken." Is that the position your government takes with respect to victims?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Unlike that member's party, we've reached out to vulnerable workers. We've had round tables. We have brought forward legislation in this House to protect vulnerable workers. In all of those round tables, I shared what their rights were and that we had a dedicated team—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): There's one Speaker in this place, but I thank the others for the advice.

Minister.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: We have a dedicated team there to help them, to support them with information, to provide access and allow them to make a claim.

I can tell you that the member, if he recalls, back on April 28, 1999, said: "Personnel matters are handled by the senior public service and not by political officials. In this case that course was followed and there was no interference from a political level in those decisions."

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: This minister had the gall to have a photo op with these victims and then did absolutely nothing to help them. He gave them a 1-800 number and kept the allegations against the Liberal member under wraps.

There's an odour here. Maybe it leads to the Premier's office. We know that the first place the minister ran to yesterday after question period was the Premier's office—right down to the Premier's office before he would appear before the media.

Whatever the response—and we're not getting any meaningful answers from the minister today—the people of Ontario deserve answers. This minister has failed in his responsibilities. He should be stepping aside. Again we ask him to do the right thing, the honourable thing: step down until a full investigation can be conducted.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: It's very unfortunate that that member and his party have voted against, time in and time out, legislation to protect Ontario workers when it comes to health and safety, when it comes to vulnerable workers, when it comes to employment standards, when it comes to raising the minimum wage, when it comes to temporary help agencies—over and over, behind the 1-800 line, that dedicated team of officials. The labour critic himself has said, "You have too many officials. You are being too proactive when it comes to protecting workers." He can't have it both ways. He's playing politics with a very, very serious matter.

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Yesterday in the House of Commons, Minister Kenney noted that the allegations against MP Ruby Dhalla violate several sections of the federal immigration laws. My question to him is simply: Was this minister aware that hiring nannies illegally is a violation of the federal Immigration and Refugee Protection Act?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: As we've been out in these round tables, consultations with nannies, we have heard many allegations as well as disturbing stories that do involve federal programs, a live-in caregiver nanny federal program. That's why I—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'm going to warn the member from Renfrew that if he persists, I will have to proceed with other measures.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: In those round tables, what we have been hearing is that many of the accusations stem back to a flawed, broken federal program. I asked, in the meeting that we had on April 25, all of those that were there and some that would be meeting with Mr. Kenney the next day, to please—

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

Mr. Michael Prue: It's obvious to me that the minister did know that that was an illegal activity.

Part 3,

section 126 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act states: "Every person who knowingly ... or attempts to counsel, induce, aid or abet any person to directly or indirectly misrepresent or withhold material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this act is guilty of an offence."

That offence is punishable both by way of

summary conviction and indictment, and a person can get prison time or a hefty fine. My question to the minister: Knowing this now, will the minister do the honourable thing right now and resign?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Just to finish off where I left, I had called Minister Kenney over a month ago to tell him about the litany of problems that we have with this federal program. Minister Kenney yesterday admitted in the House of Commons that most of the allegations in this case and others do fall under federal jurisdiction, either through Immigration Canada or the Canada Revenue Agency.

I also wrote Minister Kenney yesterday to invite him out to round tables, where we don't limit conversation to one caregiver but we open up it to everybody, so that he can hear for himself how broken a federal live-in care program he has. This is a very serious matter. It needs to be fixed. We're doing all we can here to protect vulnerable workers in the province of—

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

REMOTE DRUG DISPENSING

Mr. Jim Brownell: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, this morning's Toronto Star had a brief

article about a new technological innovation that would make it easier for Ontarians to fill their drug prescriptions. Remote dispensing, which would allow Ontarians to get their prescriptions from a machine, sounds like a promising initiative. At the same time, I am wondering about the safety concerns. How will this machine ensure that drugs are administered safely?

Hon. David Caplan: I want to thank the member from Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry for the question. I think these machines have incredible potential to be used in retirement homes, doctor's clinics or in remote or rural communities right around Ontario. When it comes to drug dispensing, safety is my number one priority, so I'm pleased to tell the House that these machines are safe, efficient and reliable. In the course at Sunnybrook, not one error was made.

The machines allow Ontarians to speak with a pharmacist via teleconference. The pharmacist can then administer the prescription from the machine. Here's how it works: The patient inputs a prescription from their doctor. The machine connects that patient with a pharmacist at an off-site location via video conferencing. The patient and the pharmacist can speak to each other about the drug's possible side effects. The pharmacist will supervise the machine as it dispenses and labels the appropriate drug.

This will perhaps give greater access and—

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

Mr. Jim Brownell: This sounds like a positive initiative, with the potential to make it easier for some patients to get needed prescriptions and medications. I know that many Ontarians, especially elderly Ontarians, can have difficulty getting to pharmacies. Having a remote dispensing machine in a doctor's office or at a retirement home would make it easier for them to access needed medication without having to travel. There are likely other benefits to remote dispensing. I ask the minister: How will allowing remote dispensing benefit Ontarians?

Hon. David Caplan: I really want to thank the member, because remote dispensing and this initiative fit well with our other health objective. We want to create a system that makes it easier for Ontarians to access health care and health care providers wherever they are, whenever they need it. If rolled out across the province, these machines have tremendous potential to reduce the time needed to fill prescriptions. They also provide the possibility of 24-hour, seven-day access to drugs for patients.

Allowing remote dispensing also has economic benefits. It may attract new business development to Ontario. It could enable new technological innovations in health care.

Interjection: Win-win.

Hon. David Caplan: My colleague from Scarborough says "win-win"; he's absolutely right. It could give pharmacists the opportunity to expand their current operating models. Patients, of course, will benefit through easier access, greater convenience and enhanced patient safety. That is the hallmark of the reforms that this government has brought in: greater access—

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

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: My question is also to the Minister of Labour. Minister, you swore an oath of office to faithfully discharge your duties as a public servant and to observe and comply with the laws of Canada and the laws of Ontario. You violated that oath when, after hearing the disturbing allegations from these nannies, you did not act to support the people who came to you in their time of need and expected you to uphold the laws of Ontario.

Was this just a photo-op? If it was, come clean. But tell us: Did you contact your deputy minister? What did you and Kathleen Wynne discuss about this issue? Most importantly, did you immediately inform Premier McGuinty?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I'd like to thank the member for the question. Again, I take my position as Minister of Labour very seriously. I understand the responsibility of this position and I do it in an impartial and fair way. The last thing that I would want to do, I say to that member, is jeopardize an investigation and provide any incorrect information. That information should be provided to Ministry of Labour officials. We have a dedicated team there to investigate and to deal with any claims that come forward.

It's important that a minister of a regulatory ministry is not seen to be participating in an investigation. That is the right approach, I say to that member, and I would hope that she respects and understands the position and how the position should deal with these matters. But what I have—

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

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: I'm not asking for particulars of the investigation; I'm asking what the minister's actions were immediately after he found out something very wrong had happened.

Minister, you have had a long time to act on this. You have clearly violated your oath of office and you have abandoned the principles that we hold dear in our country. I expect more from you as an MPP, but even more as the Minister of Labour.

Minister, I'm asking again: What did you discuss with Kathleen Wynne after you heard about these allegations, and did you immediately inform Premier McGuinty of what had happened?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: The real issue here is a flawed, broken federal program. Time after time I've heard from exploited caregivers that they were afraid to make official complaints; they're afraid to make official complaints about their employers. We want those caregivers to be able to come forward to make those complaints and to be able to recover wages that are owed to them, which they have been denied, but we do not want to make that decision for them to come forward without their co-operation. It is up to them.

We provided access—we did that immediately—and we have asked them to come forward, but I need Minister Kenney to address these very, very serious matters that relate back to a broken federal program, because that is what I keep hearing from these—

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

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: To the Minister of Labour: The minister did nothing to ensure the investigation of these serious allegations. No one followed up; no one got back to these women. The only thing we do know for sure is that the minister did nothing—nothing—to help these women. The question is: Is this minister arrogant, incompetent or both?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: The member is completely wrong. Again, the member was not there. What happened in that very open meeting, where there was a lot of sharing going on by all the caregivers—over 30 caregivers were there sharing information. We took that information, we provided fact sheets, we provided the supports that we have in the Ministry of Labour to help them. There are professionals, dedicated staff, there to help these vulnerable workers.

We will continue to champion, on this side of the House, vulnerable workers. That is what we have done since we formed government in 2003 and that is what we will continue to do. We have a very broken federal program that needs fixing, but we are going to do our part to ensure that those workers—

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Again to the Minister of Labour: He knows that he and his staff did nothing to help these vulnerable women who disclosed almost slave-labour conditions in Ontario. The women couldn't leave, they were forced to do work that had nothing to do with their job description and they were working for just over $1 an hour. But when it comes to enforcing Ontario's labour laws, the Minister of Labour—and I repeat—did nothing to help these women.

The House has no confidence that the Minister of Labour has the moral or ethical standards to protect the workers in this province. The only question remaining is: Why won't he resign immediately?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: We take our labour laws in this province very seriously. I say to the member that if she knows anybody who has been unjustly treated—anybody, here at Queen's Park or throughout the province of Ontario—they should contact the Ministry of Labour. They should call the Ministry of Labour, where we have dedicated staff, well-trained professionals able to address those claims and provide information in terms of employee rights so that those investigators can get on and do their work to investigate any of those claims.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

Mr. Khalil Ramal: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Minister, this week marks Emergency Preparedness Week for all jurisdictions across Canada, and I think this matter is important for all of us in this place.

We have all seen devastating and disastrous events touch the lives of thousands of people across the world, and we recognize the need to be prepared.

Emergency first responders are well trained and well equipped to handle many situations, from flooding similar to what occurred in Manitoba to the ice storm faced by residents of eastern Ontario and Quebec more than a decade ago. I think it's important to have people prepared to support our province. But I also know that the focus of Emergency Preparedness Week is on personal response and obligation. Would you tell me what we are doing as Ontarians to prepare for this event?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: First of all, I want to thank the member from London—Fanshawe for his very professional approach to emergency preparedness. He is absolutely right. Our emergency responders will be on the scene when necessary, but we have a responsibility as well, and that's why the theme of Emergency Preparedness Week this year is, "Is your family prepared?" Unfortunately, only 10% of Ontario families have an emergency evacuation plan. Only 12% of Ontario families have an emergency preparedness kit. Both are essential in ensuring our personal safety.

So this year we encourage everyone to develop that emergency preparedness plan that can save your loved ones and to put together that emergency preparedness kit.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I will encourage my constituents to visit the Emergency Management Ontario website to ensure that their kit is complete and able to meet their needs in the case of emergency.

I also want to ask the minister: Some people take, as an emergency measure, some personal belongings, like a pet. Sometimes when an emergency hits, they forget behind them many different pets and animals that are dear to them. What happened during Katrina is that so many people and so many pets were left behind. Can you tell us how they can take into consideration emergency measures, especially when 72 hours is not enough to prepare themselves to evacuate and also take their pets with them? Can you inform the House and the people of Ontario what we can do to help those people?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I want to thank the member again for that question, because it is important. The emergency preparedness kit is a personalized kit. If in fact you have a pet, you have to make sure that you provide for that pet for the first 72 hours of an emergency. Obviously, we want to make sure that the pet has food. If it's a dog, you'd want it to have a leash. You'd want to ensure that it had water. As you put that kit together, you put it together for your family members and for that which you love. In this instance, we're talking about pets.

You also have to make sure, in that evacuation plan, that if you're going to a shelter—you have to think this out. You have to find out if that shelter accepts animals. If it doesn't, look on our website, emergencymanagementontario.ca, and we will give you the details necessary to prepare properly.

HYDRO TRANSMISSION LINE

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is for the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure. Hydro One's Bruce-to-Milton transmission reinforcement project, which is a new 180-kilometre, double-circuit, 500-kilovolt transmission line, is causing grave concern in Wellington-Halton Hills. Many people whose homes are along the proposed corridor are not being treated fairly when it comes to compensation discussions. Some would say their lives have been put on hold; others would say their lives have been destroyed.

I have attended many meetings, written many letters and spoken to three successive McGuinty Ministers of Energy to represent my constituents on this issue. A few of these constituents are here today: Rob Barlow, Steve and Pat Crouse, Julia Jenkins and Anne Clifford. My question to the minister is very simple: Will the minister meet with my constituents, here today, right after question period, hear their stories and instruct Hydro One to restart fair negotiations on their compensation?

Hon. George Smitherman: here we have an honourable member asking a minister of the crown to directly interfere in a process where people specialized in the issue of evaluation of land are doing that work, and he asks me as a minister of the crown, as a politician, to interfere in this process. I don't get that party.

No, I will not take such a meeting. I've told the honourable member that on countless occasions over the last few weeks. The process that Hydro One has initiated is a process that's ongoing, and the issues of evaluation associated with the land have been established, in part, through a working group of the very owners themselves. We're at the point where Hydro One is making voluntary offers of settlement. The EA process is ongoing, and the process should be allowed to continue, notwithstanding that the honourable member has drawn the judgment that his constituents are not being treated fairly. I don't know on what professional basis he has the capacity to make such an evaluation.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Arnott: Just now, we saw the face of government arrogance and contempt for the people at its worst, and it wasn't a pleasant sight.

In my 19 years here, it's been routine for ministers to meet concerned constituents after question period. With Bill 150, the minister is seeking extraordinary new powers over Ontario's electricity system. How can he now say that he has no authority to help my constituents and others along the proposed line, Bruce to Milton? They are not getting a fair deal. Why is this minister sidestepping his responsibility? Why is he allowing Hydro One to zap my constituents?

Hon. George Smitherman: Again, I say to the honourable member that it is not a meeting that I am opposed to. It is the honourable member's suggestion that a minister of the crown, in the midst of a process on the issue of land evaluation where specialists are involved in a transparent process, should insinuate himself into such a process. I'd be very happy to take a variety of meetings that the honourable member might suggest; I just think the one that he's suggesting at this time is highly inappropriate.

Accordingly, no, I will not be available to meet with his constituents, but I do continue to encourage all parties, including Hydro One, to work through the process that has been established, that is transparent and that has valuation of land based on a process that involves the very affected landowners themselves.

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Exactly two weeks ago today, the minister stood in this House and told a story of when he was a teenager and working in a makeshift call centre set up in a basement. He said, "... what I can tell you is that it was a horrific experience." He said he didn't do anything about it because he didn't know his rights.

He's done nothing for the nannies. He's the Minister of Labour. Does he know the province's labour laws now? That's the question.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: The member is quite right that it was a horrific experience, and back in that day I did not have information and access to professionally trained officials to be able to help me with that case. But that's completely different now here in Ontario. What we've been doing is reaching out to those caregivers, and in all those meetings we've been listening carefully. We have been providing that access immediately so that they can get the supports that they need.

I can tell the member that what is happening is, we have a dedicated enforcement unit that is already investigating those complaints. They are doing their job. We are also continuing with our consultations so that, as we move forward with legislation, we can get it right and we can close all those loopholes that are under provincial jurisdiction.

But this stems back—

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: We're talking about the Minister of Labour here. His mission is "to advance safe, fair and harmonious workplace practices that are essential to the social and economic well-being of the people of Ontario."

After the minister was made aware of these serious allegations, why didn't he ensure that those nannies were working in a fair and safe workplace? They were still at risk. Since the minister failed to act on this scandal, what he should do—we all know it—is resign. Why won't he do that?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: As we've been out in these consultations, round tables, listening to these stories—and the stories have been very alarming—I have encouraged these nannies to come forward and to share their stories with our ministry officials. But I can't do that for them. I know that many of them feel very vulnerable because, due to a federal program that is severely broken, they may be deported out of the country. That's what they're saying. They have said to me personally, "Minister, you are doing all the right things for Ontario, but we understand that this is a broken federal program that needs to be fixed and we are very scared of being deported."

So we will—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to correct the record of the Minister of Labour just to indicate that we voted—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I remind the honourable member that that is not a point of order and that one member cannot correct another member's record.

DEFERRED VOTES

FAMILY STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LE DROIT DE LA FAMILLE

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 133,

An Act to amend various Acts in relation to certain family law matters and to repeal the Domestic Violence Protection Act, 2000 / Projet de loi 133, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne des questions de droit de la famille et abrogeant la Loi de 2000 sur la protection contre la violence familiale.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1135 to 1140.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The members please take their seats.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. Some of us might like to have lunch.

All those in favour will please rise one at a time and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): All those opposed will please rise and be recorded by the Clerk.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 49; the nays are 0.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I declare the motion carried.

Third reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters):

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

There being no further business, this House stands recessed until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1143 to 1300.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I'm very pleased to welcome Patrick Mulhall, a grade 4 student from Canadian Martyrs in Penetang, in the members' gallery. He's an up-and-coming young leader who is very active in his school's government. Welcome, Patrick.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WORLD ASTHMA DAY

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I'm very pleased to rise in the House today to recognize World Asthma Day, which took place this past Tuesday, May 5.

The purpose of this day is to raise awareness about the effects asthma has on those who suffer from it, and this year to draw attention, in particular, to the theme that there are steps that sufferers and caregivers can take to control the symptoms.

Regrettably, asthma affects more than three million Canadians—almost a third live in Ontario. It is unfortunate, but it's estimated that 10 people die each week from this disease in Canada. Asthma cases are growing and will persist in growing, particularly as air pollution levels worsen and continue to make a normal life harder to achieve for asthma sufferers.

This asthma issue was first addressed by our government in 2000, when we committed $4 million in annual funding to develop an integrated and comprehensive plan of action. This step by the PC government in 2000 was the first in Ontario's history. Today, we require the same type of coordinated and collaborative action more than ever to deal with the growing incidence of asthma in our province and to assist the sufferers.

PROFESSIONAL HOCKEY FRANCHISE

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: As a dedicated hockey fan and a proud Hamiltonian, the latest news is very exciting. Our great city of Hamilton could be the new home of an NHL team.

From Hamilton minor hockey to the Bulldogs, our city has a long and proud history of hockey, and the addition of an NHL franchise would be a central part of this legacy.

I know that southern Ontarians, and especially Hamiltonians, are very enthusiastic about bringing another franchise to Ontario and Canada.

Pick up a copy of today's Hamilton Spectator and you will find that from page A1 to A11 this is the story of the day. The reason for this is no secret: Economically, this would be a major boon for Hamilton and Ontario.

In addition to attracting fans from across southern Ontario, an NHL team would be a strong partner for our businesses, not to mention the benefits of healthy competition for the NHL.

I believe that our city, Hamilton, Ontario, is the right place at the right time. There's no question that Hamiltonians are ready and willing to receive an NHL team, and I'll be with them each step of the way.

MILTON DISTRICT HOSPITAL

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I'm not sure Hamilton should get a franchise, because if they got one, Toronto would want one too.

I rise yet again today to ask the Minister of Health to please review and respond to Halton Healthcare Services' proposal for the expansion of Milton District Hospital. The proposal was sent last September, eight months ago. Why is this taking so long?

There are now two community groups working diligently to raise public awareness, lobby the government and work with local governments in fundraising efforts. One of these groups has recently been funded by the town of Milton, while the other is a grassroots volunteer effort. That should demonstrate to the Minister of Health how much the people of Milton care about their health care and how far they are willing to go to receive an expansion.

Thousands have signed petitions. They have written letters, they have phoned my office and the Office of the Premier, and now they have organized. And what has the government said in response? The Minister of Energy and Infrastructure told us to be quiet and show him some money; the Minister of Health told us how proud he was that other hospitals were being built around Ontario. Meanwhile, the people of Milton, the fastest-growing town in Canada, are left precariously without adequate health care.

When will the Minister of Health approve the business plan so Milton can move forward with the sizing study and eventual expansion of the hospital? These unprecedented delays are unacceptable to the people of Milton and should give grave concern to the people of Ontario about the management capacity of this government.

CHILD CARE

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, as you are aware and as members of this Legislative Assembly are aware, there is a tremendous amount of concern regarding the stability of early learning and child care funding in Ontario.

The expiry of federal funds and no commitment from the province in the recent provincial budget is a crisis in child care. Failure to address this crisis by the provincial government could lead to cuts of up to 22,000 child care subsidies and 4,000 lost jobs in the early learning and child care sector.

On May 12, child care activists will be here at the Legislature, meeting with MPPs and pressing their case. The Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care recently proposed a two-year plan to save the threatened child care subsidies, build 7,500 new affordable child care spaces and create 1,500 new jobs in early learning and child care. In addition, they've called on the provincial government to meet pay equity commitments which would raise the wages of underpaid child care staff.

If we're actually going to have a 21st-century economy, if we're actually going to build the kind of society that we want, we need to invest in child care; we need to invest in child care workers. The fact that this government has ignored the actions of the federal government and has not made provisions for funding of child care is going to mean desperation for many families and disruption of their lives. I call on the Liberal government, the McGuinty government, to actually listen to the child care coalition and the child care activists and make the investments we need.

CELEBRATE ONTARIO /

FÊTONS L'ONTARIO

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to share with you and the members of this House that tourism in Glengarry—Prescott—Russell has just received a $140,000 boost through the McGuinty government's Celebrate Ontario program.

Through Celebrate Ontario, our government is supporting the growth of four popular events in my riding. These are le festival de Noël de Casselman; le festival de la curd de St-Albert; the Multicultural Festival in the township of North Glengarry; and the Russell Fair. This support will help boost our local economy by attracting new audiences and generating more economic activities in Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

The Celebrate Ontario 2009 program is providing $11 million to 224 festivals and events across Ontario, an increase of 150% over last year. Since 2007, Ontario has invested a total of $25 million for festivals and events through Celebrate Ontario.

Je voudrais offrir mes plus sincères remerciements au ministre du Tourisme pour réunir ma communauté avec ces divers festivals.

PORK INDUSTRY

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: This morning, the member from Guelph questioned the opposition's concern for pork producers in Ontario, and I would like to correct the record.

In this Legislature, over and over we have raised the difficult situation pork producers have been facing. When we pointed out that the McGuinty government's program missed new and young pork farmers, the member from Guelph didn't feel it necessary to stand up for them then. When the cheques went to retired farmers instead of the people who were losing money on every pig they shipped, none of the Liberal backbenchers stood up for them then.

We know that as a result of H1N1, pork prices have already dropped. We know the farmers are worried. Many of those farmers are already vulnerable because they were missed under the OCHHP program payments.

We are ready and willing to work with the government to design a program that will help our hog farmers get through this. We will work with you to ensure that this time, a program is in place that works for all hog producers. We will work with you to get the message out that our pork is safe to eat.

Yesterday in Ottawa, the federal Minister of Agriculture held a free lunch to promote Ontario pork. Rather than pointing fingers across the Legislature, I encourage the minister to take us up on our offer and work together. Let's take concrete steps to support our pork farmers.

In the meantime, we will continue to do everything we can to encourage Ontarians to keep on enjoying Ontario pork.

CHARITIES

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: We all know that the global economic crisis has caused a lot of families and businesses to tighten their belts and to rein in spending. Usually when that happens, one of the first areas to suffer is the spending that takes place in the charitable sector. But I'm proud to share with the House today an example that defies this trend.

In recent years I've been privileged to work with a charity in Kenya, Africa, called the Mully Children's Family Charitable Foundation. It's an organization for abandoned, abused, HIV/AIDS-affected and infected street children and orphans.

Recently, the foundation has benefited tremendously from the generosity of Apotex. It's the largest Canadian-owned pharmaceutical company in the country, and it's headquartered right here in Ontario. Apotex recently donated essential medicines to the family village. This donation is worth over $150,000, and it's going to provide hundreds of street kids and AIDS orphans with all their pharmaceutical needs, to help them live a healthy life.

This is not the first time that this company, Apotex, has come to the table. Last October, I informed the House when they delivered nearly seven million tablets of HIV/AIDS medication to Rwanda, a decision that would help to save nearly 21,000 lives.

What lessons can we draw from this? What I've learned is that despite the incredible economic challenges we face, time and time again the businesses, families and people of Ontario rise to the occasion and help others to face them as well.

CANADIAN TULIP FESTIVAL

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: It gives me great pleasure to rise today and share with this House the landmark Canadian Tulip Festival taking place in my great riding of Ottawa Centre. This remarkable festival is in its 57th year and will bring 18 straight days of entertainment and enjoyment to Ottawa's residents and visitors, from May 1 to 18.

I would like to compliment the hard-working team that makes this event world-class year over year, including David Luxton, chairman; Julian Armour, executive director; and Teri Kirk, president—and of course a big thank you to the staff and volunteers who make it happen.

In 1945, the Netherlands presented Ottawa with 100,000 tulip bulbs in appreciation of the safe haven provided in Ottawa to Holland's exiled royal family during the Second World War. After many seasons of enjoyment of these flowers, the tulip festival was formalized in 1953.

Each spring, over 600,000 people from all over North America, Europe and Asia make over a million visits to the Canadian Tulip Festival. Studies show that it has a $50-million economic impact annually on the Ottawa region.

Highlights this year include musical performances by numerous local, national and international groups; the internationally renowned Nanjing Acrobatic Troupe; and an interactive circus.

The government's Celebrate Ontario program has contributed $300,000 to the Canadian Tulip Festival in both 2008-09 and 2009-10, and the tourism event marketing partnership program has contributed $87,000.

I encourage all of Ottawa's residents and visitors to please come and enjoy the tulip festival.

PREMIER'S AWARDS FOR

TEACHING EXCELLENCE

Mr. David Zimmer: It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today in recognition of the 20 educators and school support staff who recently received the Premier's Awards for Teaching Excellence.

Each day, parents hand over their most precious gift, their children, to teachers. With this gesture of trust comes the challenge of guiding children to becoming effective, empowered and creative adults.

The McGuinty Liberals commend the work that all teachers and school board staff do to help students reach their full potential. The awards are a great way to recognize those individuals who make a difference in education.

It also gives me distinct pleasure to recognize two Toronto recipients: teacher Vernon Kee, who engages students through the use of technology and helps them to explore global outreach opportunities; and educational assistant Vimaladevy Vijeyacumar, who is a champion of math, coaching the school's math league team and giving students the confidence to compete in provincial and national competitions. These are but two examples of the outstanding work being done in the schools on a daily basis.

These awards signify the McGuinty government's commitment to education, and the understanding that teachers and support staff are its backbone.

I encourage all members in this House, and indeed all Ontarians, to recognize the efforts of Ontario's educators, not just through such awards but throughout the entire year.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Speaker's prerogative: I want to take this opportunity to welcome in the Speaker's gallery Charline Broderick and Sara Pereira, students at St. Joseph's College who are working here as co-op students at the Legislative Assembly. Sara, Charline, welcome to the Legislature today.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

AND SCHOOL BOARD

GOVERNANCE ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

SUR LE RENDEMENT DES ÉLÈVES

ET LA GOUVERNANCE

DES CONSEILS SCOLAIRES

Ms. Wynne moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 177,

An Act to amend the Education Act with respect to student achievement, school board governance and certain other matters / Projet de loi 177, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui concerne le rendement des élèves, la gouvernance des conseils scolaires et d'autres questions.

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

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The minister for a short statement.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I'll reserve my statement for ministerial statements.

CONGENITAL HEART DISEASE

AWARENESS DAY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE JOUR

DE LA SENSIBILISATION

À LA CARDIOPATHIE CONGÉNITALE

Ms. Jaczek moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 178,

An Act to proclaim February 14 in each year as Congenital Heart Disease Awareness Day / Projet de loi 178, Loi proclamant le 14 février de chaque année Jour de la sensibilisation à la cardiopathie congénitale.

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

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member for a short statement.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: Congenital heart disease, or CHD, is the most common cause of all birth defects, affecting one in 70 newborns. There are presently 20,000 children and 37,000 adults in the province of Ontario with CHD. Most CHD patients require lifelong specialized medical care in order to survive. CHD Awareness Day aims to highlight to the public the need for enhanced standards of care for CHD patients, as well as increased research funding and assistance to support groups.

I would like to now recognize, in the west members' gallery, many members of the Canadian Congenital Heart Alliance: its founder, John MacEachern, and members of Avi Goldstein's family. Unfortunately, Avi passed away very recently. We have with us his widow, Ericka Goldstein; his brothers, Jay and Dov; his sister, Karla; and his mother, Rookie. Other members of the Canadian Congenital Heart Alliance are Jennifer Graham and Toby Cox. We also have with us, from the adult congenital heart disease clinic of Toronto General Hospital, Dr. Erwin Oeschlin and Jeanine Harrison.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

SCHOOL BOARDS /

CONSEILS SCOLAIRES

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: For generations, local school boards have been a cornerstone of strong, publicly funded education in Ontario. More than 10 years ago, there were substantial changes that were made to school board governance in Ontario, and since then, several major reports, including the Royal Commission on Learning and Dr. Rozanski's Education Quality Task Force, have called for a governance review to see if the structures in place are operating as effectively as they should. That's why, last year, we assembled the governance review committee to examine how well the current governance structure is serving Ontario's education system.

Je tiens à remercier le comité de son travail acharné et saluer ceux de ses membres qui sont là aujourd'hui : Madeleine Chevalier, Denis Chartrand et Harold Brathwaite. Merci beaucoup.

This committee, led by Madame Chevalier, consulted with trustees, school board directors, parents and parent representatives on the best practices in Ontario's publicly funded education system. Just last month we released the committee's report, which found many strengths in the current system, but it also identified some areas for improvement.

Overall, the report recommended that we clarify the mandate and duties of school boards. I just want to be clear that the intention of this exercise was the strengthening of our school boards across the province. We have 72 school boards in the publicly funded education system, and our intention in doing this review was so that we could make changes that would strengthen those boards. Overall, the board recommended that we clarify the mandate and duty of school boards. This includes promoting student achievement and well-being, delivering effective and appropriate programs and ensuring that the board's resources are well managed.

The report also made a number of other recommendations, including clarifying the roles of trustees and directors of education, putting strategic plans into place for student outcomes, as well as recommendations for professional development and other supports for the effective governance of boards.

Today this government is taking action to address many of the committee's recommendations. I'm pleased to stand in the House to introduce amendments to the Education Act. This legislation demonstrates our government's high level of respect for trustees, while strengthening school board governance and improving student achievement, which is our highest priority. If passed, this legislation would clarify the mandate and duties of school boards to emphasize their responsibility for student achievement. It would also clarify the roles of individual trustees, board chairs and directors of education.

Finally, it would build on good governance practices, which we know exist, including establishing audit committees and adopting a provincial code of conduct for trustees.

I'd like to recognize some of the ministry staff here today who worked very hard on this legislation: Barry Pervin, Margot Trevelyan, Margaret Correia, Elaine Molgat, Rachel Osborne and Ken Thurston, from my office. Thank you very much for your hard work.

This government is committed to higher levels of student achievement. At the same time, we know that good governance by our trustees and directors of education is necessary to support higher levels of student achievement. This government has a great deal of respect for Ontario's trustees and directors of education. We know that they work hard every day to make the publicly funded education system work. The legislation I'm introducing today is intended to support them in their roles.

En effet, tous les intervenants dans le système ont un rôle important à jouer.

As most of you know, this is Education Week. I have been visiting even more of our schools than usual, and as always when I visit our schools, I am so very proud of what I see, and I know that everyone in this Legislature feels the same way about the schools in their ridings and across the province. You can feel the optimism and see the hard work that everyone is undertaking to create rich learning environments for students and to support each student's achievement.

This week I've seen students competing at the Ontario Technological Skills Competition at the RIM facility in Waterloo in robotics, construction, culinary arts and so many more projects. I've read with the students of Sir Wilfrid Laurier Public School in Brampton in their fabulous library, celebrating their Fairytale Extravaganza event, and I had the privilege of honouring the recipients of the Premier's Awards for Teaching Excellence and hearing the stories of inspiring teachers, principals and support staff from across the province.

I'm thrilled to see the progress that we're making, and I hope the legislation we're introducing today will lead to further progress. This legislation shows that we're staying true to our core commitments: We're working to increase student achievement, close the gap between students who are struggling and those who are not, and continue to build public confidence in our publicly funded education system, because this government is committed to not only building the best education system in the world but building the best education system for the world.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Responses?

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: I rise in the House today in response to the Minister of Education's new bill that will amend the Education Act to "make student achievement our top priority."

Minister, I'm surprised and somewhat disappointed to see that you have the nerve to introduce legislation on accountability in our school system when you yourself have demonstrated a surprising lack of accountability as of late.

I'm also shocked to hear your comments that, "Trustees are vital partners in boosting student achievement, and these changes make it clear that we're counting on them"—on them—"to make a difference." While I agree totally that trustees play a very important role in our education system, I find it interesting that you have failed to hold them to account, as evidenced in the TCDSB, for flagrant violations of the Education Act.

At a time when many of the Toronto Catholic District School Board trustees have failed to pay expenses that were deemed illegal by the auditor's report, you have the gall to introduce this legislation. Before you go reallocating responsibility to this one and that one, I suggest you get your own house in order. It is the expectation of this side of the House, and certainly of every taxpayer in Ontario, that before you do anything else with relation to trustee issues, you will recoup the funds rightfully owed to the people of Ontario.

In fact, your legislation does not even include a formal code of conduct for trustees, which was one of the key recommendations of the Hartmann report and your own ministry's school board governance report, which was tabled in April. Here we go again with legislation that has been written on the back of a napkin, and that is supposed to placate us and take the heat off the minister.

I'm here to serve you notice, Minister: I have no intention of taking the heat off you, because there is more here than meets the eye if you can stand in a photo op with people who are looking to you for help at a time when they needed you, and all you could do is introduce governance legislation. The conflicts of interest that abound among the Toronto Catholic District School Board trustees are flagrant and offensive. Once again I say: If you really, really want to make governance a priority for your ministry, try using some on the home front first.

There's an old British saying: "Start as you mean to go on." You have started off poorly, at best, by refusing to swiftly address the violations of your trustees at the Toronto Catholic District School Board. You have continued to allow that cloud of disrepute to cast a shadow over every hard-working trustee across this province. I'm certain that the majority of trustees who are conscientiously working in the best interests of their students are as eager as I am to have you deal with this issue: deal with it immediately, and once and for all.

The Liberal methodology is to have a meeting that leads to the next meeting and the next meeting and the next meeting. Our way is to analyze the issue and then take decisive action. Instead, the minister has rushed through the bill, which is no more than a show, trying to illustrate that she is doing something. I find that rolling this bill in with student achievement and then talking about a code of conduct demonstrates that the minister is not addressing the serious issue of conflict of interest.

The truth of the