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

June 22, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2006-Jun-22 (PDF)

L095 - Thu 22 Jun 2006 / Jeu 22 jun 2006

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 22 June 2006 Jeudi 22 juin 2006

Private Members’ Public Business

Interior Designers Act, 2006 Loi de 2006 sur les designers d’intérieur

Sexual Harassment Awareness Week Act, 2006 Loi de 2006 sur la semaine de la sensibilisation au harcèlement sexuel

Interior Designers Act, 2006 loi de 2006 sur les designers d’intérieur

Sexual Harassment Awareness Week Act, 2006 Loi de 2006 sur la semaine de la sensibilisation au harcèlement sexuel

Annual Report, Office of the Ombudsman

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Taxation

Pride week

World Cup

Premier’s record

Education

Native land dispute

Ontario economy

Fair access to professions

Health promotion

Status of Bill 132

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Education Amendment Act (Stability for Students in Transition Housing), 2006 Loi de 2006 modifiant la

Loi sur l’éducation (stabilité pour les étudiants vivant dans un logement de transition)

Retail Sales Tax Amendment Act, 2006 Loi de 2006 modifiant la

Loi sur la taxe de vente au détail

MOTIONS

Committee sittings

Legislative pages

Visitors

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

Domestic violence

Fête de la Saint-Jean-Baptiste

Domestic violence

Saint-Jean-Baptiste day Fête de la Saint-Jean-Baptiste

Domestic violence

Visitors

DEFERRED VOTES

Education Statute Law Amendment Act (Learning to Age 18), 2006 Loi de 2006 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne l’éducation (apprentissage jusqu’à l’âge de 18 ans)

Visitors

ORAL QUESTIONS

Native land dispute

Child protection

Environmental assessment

Home care

Municipal government

Street racing

Municipal elections

Growth planning

Native land dispute

Arts and Culture Funding

Renewable fuels

Water quality

Diet supplements

PETITIONS

Highway funding

Municipal restructuring, Restructuration municipale

Fair access to professions

Native land dispute

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder

Go transit tunnel

Leslie M. Frost Centre

Autism treatment

Home care

Services for the developmentally disabled

School facilities

Long-term care

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Good Government Act, 2006 Loi de 2006 sur la saine gestion publique

Ronald McDonald House (Hamilton) Act, 2006

Golden Dreams Home and Decor Ltd. Act, 2006

Sisters of St. Joseph of Hamilton Act, 2006

Talpiot College Act, 2006

Thunder Bay International Airports Authority Inc. Act, 2006

MOTIONS

Consideration of bills

Consideration of bill 209

ORDERS OF THE DAY (continued)

Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Drinking and Boating Offences), 2006 Loi de 2006 modifiant le Code de la route (infractions relatives à l’alcool et à la navigation de plaisance)

Greater Toronto Transportation Authority Act, 2006 Loi de 2006 sur la Régie des transports du grand Toronto

Royal Assent Sanction Royale

Visitor

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

Private Members’ Public Business

Interior Designers Act, 2006 Loi de 2006 sur les designers d’intérieur

Mr. Peterson moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 121,

An Act respecting interior designers / Projet de loi 121, Loi ayant trait aux designers d’intérieur.

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

I would like to take a moment to extend a warm welcome to the members of ARIDO who have joined us today: Susan Mole, Gary Hewson, Joseph Pephipas, Victor Horobin, Caroline Pinto, Lynn McGregor, Peter Grimley, Susan Wiggins and Martin Campbell. I’d ask you to stand and be recognized.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Jeff Leal, the MPP for Peterborough, who worked with the association to develop this legislation. Thank you, Jeff, for all your hard work in making this legislation a reality.

Interior design is not, as some people assume, interior decorating. Interior design is a multifaceted profession in which creative and technical solutions are applied to create the interior environment. Designs must adhere to building and fire codes as well as other provincial and federal regulatory requirements and encourage the principles of environmental sustainability.

Unlike interior decorators, interior designers submit applications, drawings and specifications for building permits on a regular basis. Interior designers are required to possess considerable specialized knowledge of fire codes, building codes, material flammability and toxicity issues. They are trained to create barrier-free designs that ensure the ease and protection of the public, including access for the disabled. This will become increasingly important over the next several years as we find cost-effective, ease-of-use solutions for Ontario’s aging population.

This legislation is about regulating a practice that significantly affects the health and safety of the public who utilize and occupy public interior spaces—whether it’s you and your staff in your office, your family out enjoying an evening meal at a restaurant or your weekly routine stop at your local bank—public spaces that we use everyday, including corporate offices, hospitals, airports, restaurants, shopping malls and academic institutions.

Unfortunately, interior design is currently an unregulated profession in Ontario. There are no restrictions on who may practise the complexities of interior design. This puts the public at risk.

Businesses understand the value of having qualified professionals perform interior design services. They understand the efficiencies that result from having certified practitioners design their public spaces. All Ontarians should be entitled to know that the interior design professionals they choose to work with are qualified.

In 1984, ARIDO was given the authority to set standards and regulate its membership under

An Act respecting the Association of Registered Interior Designers of Ontario. Currently, those who choose to belong to ARIDO and use the title “interior designer” must meet education standards and internship requirements, as well as pass standardized North American examinations. Members of ARIDO are also required to carry professional and general liability insurance, adhere to a code of ethics and standards of practice, and participate in a mandatory continuing education program.

Because of ARIDO’s high standards for membership, practitioners are also recognized under the Ontario Building Code Act in the definition of designers. As such, they are subject to much the same qualification requirements as architects, engineers and building officials.

However, ARIDO’s efforts to protect the public can only go so far. They have no authority to either regulate non-members or impose sanctions upon those who practise without meeting the appropriate qualifications. What ARIDO requires is standards of practice embodied in an enforceable code of ethics and the means to discipline a practitioner.

This proposed legislation provides the authority to regulate individuals who practise interior design without the necessary qualifications, as well as to regulate interior design practitioners who do not adhere to professional requirements. That is why it is so important to debate and ultimately pass this legislation.

Although there is a law that protects the title of “interior designer” in Ontario, there is no protection to prevent an unqualified person from practising interior design, as long as they do not call themselves an interior designer. This is confusing to the public. It is also potentially dangerous for public safety.

By providing a legal definition of the scope of the practice, this legislation will help the consumer differentiate the responsibilities and services of each of the design professions. It will allow consumers to choose the appropriate design professional.

Consumers will benefit from this legislation, as it ensures standards of competency and continued professional development. It will provide an enforceable complaints and discipline process for consumers who require it.

Nova Scotia recognized the importance of regulating the practice of interior design. In 2003, they became the first province to regulate it. Within the United States, there are currently 26 states with this type of legislation in place.

The framework for regulation proposed in this bill is comparable to other similar regulatory professions in Ontario, such as architects and engineers. The key component is defined scope of practice for interior design. As I noted earlier, the work of the interior designer relates to changes to the interior of a building consistent with the building code. The types of buildings covered by this bill are set out in table 2.3.1.1 of the Ontario building code. This bill does not affect residential and small business spaces under 6,450 square feet.

It follows the principles of the Ontario building code, which sets out specific types of buildings that already require the services of an architect or engineer for structural purposes. The legislation will only require the services of an interior designer for buildings where the services of architects and engineers are currently required. However, there is nothing in this proposed legislation that affects the rights and obligations of professional engineers under their respective legislation.

The bill provides for three categories of practitioners for interior design. The legislation will enhance public protection by providing for a clear designation to be used by qualified, regulated practitioners only.

Section 4 continues the protected of the title “interior designer” by limiting it to practitioners that are qualified and registered by a ARIDO.

The proposed legislation outlines the membership and registration process for the newly authorized association. The proposed legislation also establishes a governing council, which will consist of nine to 20 certified practitioners. There will be an additional three to five lay people appointed by the Lieutenant Governor to represent the public interest. There will also be three committees created: a registration committee, a complaints committee and a discipline committee.

The council will have the power to appoint a registrar to conduct investigations and to do things which self-regulated professions are required to do to regulate a profession.

Mr. Speaker, is my time coming to end here?

The Deputy Speaker: Yes.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie–Simcoe–Bradford): I’m very pleased to join in the debate with respect to Bill 121. The member has brought forth a bill that certainly deserves more debate. I think that this is a bill that should go to committee, because I think it’s important that we deal with all the issues and make sure we have an understanding of exactly what the impact of this bill is. This bill definitely will have impact with respect to building in this province, because it could potentially add even more to the cost of the building cycle.

As we know, in terms of building the types of buildings that the member’s proposing, an architect is required on those particular jobs, and also professional engineers. So with what he has put forth here under clause 2(2)(b), the bill regulates the practice of interior design but excludes most residential buildings, such as residential buildings under 600 square metres or 6,450 square feet. I’d like to hear from Mr. Peterson or from the profession as to what would justify the building type and size thresholds that were chosen. Why were they chosen at that particular size and that type of building?

I think it’s important for us to have a discussion on that in terms of what we are trying to deal with here.

The justification for the bill is to enhance public health and consumer protection, along with restriction of entry into interior design as a profession. However, there is no tangible evidence provided to us as legislators as to why the bill is needed to achieve these objectives. I have not seen anything in the bill specifically that increases public health and consumer protection measures. They are absent in the bill in terms of exactly how those are going to be achieved and how they are going to be specifically set out.

The statutory requirement to use an interior designer will lead to, in my opinion, increasing building costs. I haven’t seen any input from the building industry with respect to this particular bill, and obviously that is going to be needed in terms of our being able to fully assess this bill objectively.

As I indicated also, the restriction on the practice of interior design—I know my friend from Beaches–East York indicated there was a meeting with Mr. Peterson yesterday with respect to the AATO, dealing with the concern of architectural technologists about the definition of “interior design” under

section 2, in terms of that particular definition infringing upon the work of architectural technologists. That’s important, because the bill restricts entry into that particular profession, interior design, and I don’t think we are here as legislators to cavalierly and arbitrarily pass a definition which is going to infringe on the work of other professions unless we understand why that would be done and whether there is any real public interest that it’s important for that to be done.

What we are talking about here is self-regulation of a profession—that is also part of the bill—and in my opinion, being the critic for government services, self-regulation of a profession should be designed to protect the public as its main objective when we are dealing with this. But this bill focuses on restricting entry into the profession and mandating the use of the profession on building projects. It’s very specific in terms of what it wants to do and how it’s going to do that.

It’s very clear that this is going to have an impact on the building trades and how we do building in this province. It’s also going to have an impact with respect to dealing with the restriction of people who can enter into this profession under the guise of self-regulation but also mandating that you have to use interior design professionals along with architects and professional engineers.

That has got to be discussed in terms of what the public interest is with respect to that. I’m not going to accept saying here, “Oh, yes, it’s in the public interest and it’s for consumer protection,” when the bill is absolutely silent with respect to those types of protections as to what it can do for the public. We need to know that. As I indicated earlier, we also need to know, and we have to assure ourselves as legislators, that this bill is in the public interest and is not going to restrict other professions in terms of the type of work they already do. We can’t just allow that to happen unless there is a clear demarcation in terms of the types of skills that are going forward.

I’m sharing my time with other members of my caucus. I’m open to public hearings on this, but I want to make sure that this bill is fair, is in the public interest and that there is actually tangible evidence that it will protect the public.

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): It’s indeed a pleasure for me today to make some remarks on Bill 121,

An Act respecting interior designers in Ontario. I want to thank my colleague from Mississauga South for bringing forward this very important legislation. I know the member’s interest in business in Ontario comes from a very distinguished family. His brother David, of course, was Premier, and his brother Jim has had an outstanding career as a federal member of Parliament. When you go back to the history of London, C.M. Peterson Electronics is a very successful manufacturer and distributor of electronics in the province of Ontario. I know Pete and Marie Peterson are very proud of their three sons, who have made a great contribution to public life here in Ontario.

Interior designers coordinate and collaborate with other allied design professionals who may be retained to provide consulting services, including but not limited to architects; structural, mechanical and electrical engineers; and various specialty consultants.

An interior designer identifies, researches and creatively solves problems pertaining to the function, safety and quality of the interior environment in this province. Interior design decisions are made regarding health and safety, including the complex issues of indoor air quality, space planning, design for special-needs populations—it certainly takes into account Bill 118, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act—fire safety fabrics and other materials, relevant codes and standards, and product durability and quality, such as lighting, colour and other things.

Interior designers must consider and utilize proper interior materials. They are specially trained in the use of interior materials, the properties of which include flammability and toxicity, and are uniquely qualified to select interior finishes for furniture, fabrics and carpets that comply with or exceed minimum code standards.

Currently, to join ARIDO, individuals must meet requirements similar to other self-regulated professions in Ontario, including seven years of combined education, supervised internship, rigorous North American examinations, mandatory continuing education and insurance coverage, and a strict code of ethics and standards of practice.

I believe it is in the public interest of Ontario that Bill 121 be passed. The province of Nova Scotia has similar legislation, and by going to committee, we’ll be able to call upon other jurisdictions not only in Canada but in the United States that have brought interior design and made it a self-regulatory body. I think this is an exciting piece of legislation for the people of Ontario.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds–Grenville): I’ll ask one of my colleagues to nudge me when I use up my allotted time.

I rise to speak in support of Bill 121. I don’t profess—and I doubt anyone in the assembly would—to be an expert in this area. But I’ve certainly had an opportunity to become somewhat better informed over the last period of time when I had the opportunity to sit down with representatives of the interior design organization, which is known as the Association of Registered Interior Designers of Ontario, ARIDO.

I was very impressed, not only with the individuals with whom I met, but with the scope of the work they do within their profession and the complexity of much of the work they do, looking at some of the large-scale commercial or residential buildings they’re involved with, and working with the other professions, whether it’s the structural or electrical engineers, the architects and others. It is complex, intricate work.

When you look at the training required to carry out those kinds of responsibilities, I think it is important that we have people representing the best interests of the consumers required to have that kind of accreditation and that kind of experience. I think it’s been referenced here earlier that joining ARIDO requires four years of university training and three years of internship before you can qualify for membership currently, which is a voluntary membership, or three years of college and four years of internship. So I think the track record with respect to this organization is commendable indeed.

I know my colleague from Barrie put on the record a number of concerns. With respect to whether or not this legislation is in the public interest or provides consumer protection, I would suggest that’s arguable, debatable. Looking at some elements of this legislation, I think they clearly are in the best interest of consumers in providing additional protection from the complete, in many respects, lack of protection in the current environment. We talked about competition and sort of freezing off the market. Well, I don’t look at it from that perspective.

I look at it in terms of protecting the individual or the family who is purchasing services and is not, in many instances, aware of just who they’re retaining, what their qualifications are and the quality of work that will result from retaining that firm or individual.

At the end of the day, I think this legislation addresses that in a very effective way in making those distinctions between an interior designer and someone who calls himself an interior decorator. I think there’s significant confusion amongst the public if you’re looking for that kind of service. So I think that does address this. If the bill is passed and the board is established, the governing council, it will require three members of the public to sit as members of that governing council. It’s going to have a complaints and discipline process as well built into the self-regulating authority.

Those are initiatives which I think should be recognized as very significant steps forward in terms of consumer protection.

One of my colleagues, when we discussed this earlier, was talking about the concerns about small business and requiring small businesses, or when they are building residences—the requirement to retain someone with this professional designation. I think that’s another false concern that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny when one takes a careful look at the legislation.

I know it does talk about residential structures of less than 6,450 square feet. I gather one concern, and we may hear about this if and when the bill goes to committee—I heard a news report recently about the growth of these megahouses, these monster homes which would certainly exceed the 6,450 square feet. I’m personally offended by these monster homes coming into many of our residential areas, people trying to exhibit their new-found wealth, or whatever their reasons are.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve utilized my time. I want to save some for my colleague. I support this. I think it’s a good step forward. If there are concerns or there’s tweaking that has to occur, the committee process will address that.

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches–East York): I rise to support Bill 121 and to commend the member for Mississauga South for having brought the bill forward. I must state at the outset that this is probably the single largest private member’s bill that I have seen in my five years in this House. It runs some 22 pages. It’s in intricate detail. I wondered how Mr. Peterson, the member for Mississauga South, would have found all the time and all the expertise to do this.

It’s obvious, though—I found out later—that it was prepared by the architectural technologists themselves, by a crack group of public people and lawyers and everyone else. But that’s not for one second to take away from what he has tried to do here. Those who prepared the bill are to be commended as well.

The contents of the bill: It’s clearly necessary, in my view, to regulate this profession, as it is so clearly necessary to regulate many, many professions in this province. As we become more technologically inclined, as professions have spinoff groups—and quite literally all of them have; everything from dentists spinning off to denturists, doctors spinning off to nurse practitioners, architects spinning off to architectural technologists; it’s happening all over the place—we have to make sure that these groups that are not covered by regulations, that are not covered by their own schools or by their own bodies that can regulate them, have some kind of government legislation in place.

Quite clearly, this government and other governments previous to this one have done a great deal of work around this issue. There’s been a slew of bills and cases. I think probably the most famous one in the last couple of years was the whole argument around whether or not certified general accountants should be licensed and have the same kind of authority as what were considered their more senior counterparts, the chartered accountants. We also had the mixture into that of the certified management accountants. It was all resolved in a bill, very similar to this one, which brought the whole thing together.

It appears in large part to be working, and I know that there will be some additional tests forthcoming this year. As a matter of fact, it was even in the Toronto Star today, talking about the fallout from that bill and how it was impacting on the certified accountants’ lifestyles and bills and what they were doing for a living and how CGAs and CMAs are fitting into that.

I also know that we have been lobbied in this Legislature by dentists and denturists and people who do oral hygiene around how similar types of bills can and must work, if people are to do the kind of health-related work. We have the same kinds of arguments going on, as I said, between doctors and nurse practitioners. Most recently, there’s been much discussion in this Legislature from lawyers and paralegals, trying to regulate paralegals and whether or not the Law Society of Upper Canada should be the instrument by which those paralegals are regulated.

Having said that, there are some cases where I think, in our zeal to do this regulation, we have gone too far. One of those that quite clearly comes to mind is the whole issue around the building inspectors and the architects, which was passed by the previous government in the House around the building code. Today, architects are having to take courses and tests and keep up with building codes and have the same function as a building examiner. I understand this is quite onerous, particularly on architects who work alone, who have their own small office in their home or who are single proprietors and are having to write tests and study for continuing examinations,

whereas in the past this was done by building code officials and by engineers. We have put them at some considerable disadvantage. I want to make sure that when we do this bill, we do it correctly so that all of the parties who may in fact be involved get it right and that we do not impinge upon any of the other groups that may be affected.

I have carefully read the bill and I believe that it strikes, in most aspects, a very good balance—most especially

section 4, which does not in any way impinge upon architects or engineers, so that they can continue to do what they do: to perform many of the functions this bill will give over to the ARIDO.

I did read some of the notes that Mr. Peterson’s office—the member from Mississauga South—was kind enough to forward to us. They made a statement in there that groups had been consulted in great respect and were happy with it, those being the architects, the engineers, the engineering technologists and the building officials. But it also claimed that the AATO, the Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario, had been consulted. So I was quite surprised this morning when I arrived at the office to see that there was a call on my message service. It was from a Mr.

Andrew Bennett, the president of the AATO, who told me that yesterday he had an opportunity to meet with the member from Mississauga South and that the AATO in fact is very concerned about some of the provisions of this bill. They do not believe—at least not in my discussion and my staff’s discussion with him this morning—that they have been properly consulted, and they do feel certain sections of the bill will impinge upon their freedoms and upon their work and upon their ability to do their job.

I said at the beginning that I intend to support this bill, but I am hoping that, should it pass later today and if it is sent to committee, this can be looked at. I want to make sure that in no way is this bill going to take away from the livelihood of a group that is already recognized in Ontario, that is also doing considerable good work in their relationship with the architectural community, and that in passing this bill, we are not going to do anything that is going to upset their work or the work levels they have.

Having said that, I will support this, and we will, if necessary, make the necessary amendments in committee to ensure that two of the provisions they found in this particular bill are remedied.

The biggest reason I have, and all of us should have, to support the bill is that it has the potential—not within the four walls of the bill, but it has the potential to protect consumers. Consumers need to have protection. This is a $4-billion-a-year industry, it is people spending $4 billion and expecting goods and services in return that are of a quality nature, that are properly rendered, that will meet all of the other building code laws, the architectural laws and the engineering laws of the province. And there is no law in place defining who may practise.

Prior to politics, I worked in the federal immigration department for some 20 years. I want to tell you, there was no law in place there for who could practise immigration. Anybody—literally anybody—could hang up a shingle outside their office and claim to be an immigration consultant. I’m sure that today anybody can hang a shingle outside their office and claim to do the kinds of work this bill is going to regulate.

I remember, back in those days, all of the people who would go to an immigration consultant, thinking they were buying quality service, and getting some of the worst advice that anyone could possibly, in their entire life, get. The advice was ridiculous beyond belief. The fees charged were enormous. Immigration consultants regularly, routinely and almost universally counselled their clients to lie. This was what was happening out there because there was no regulation.

Ordinary, poor people would come with the hope of trying to move to Canada, to immigrate to Canada, to stay in Canada, and were ripped off literally for hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars. The consultants themselves did far more harm than they ever did good. It took years, but that profession is now self-regulating and the cases of abuse that existed some 20 years ago are no longer happening. It became self-regulating because people looked and saw that there was a necessity for doing it.

That’s why bills such as this one are absolutely important. The public needs to know, number one, who has been trained. They need to know who is licensed. More importantly, they need to know who is not licensed. If you are armed with that kind of information, then you can make a wise decision. You can make a wise decision on any type of building, you can make a wise decision on who has the experience or the credentials and you can spend your money and get the quality of result that you expect for it.

I looked through the bill and through the compendium and the notes that the member from Mississauga South sent, and it was quite clear that one province has already moved in this direction, the province of Nova Scotia. We also know that there are some 26 US states that have similar laws on the books. It’s clear to me that the overwhelming bulk of interior designers are in Ontario—it’s clear. If you look at the $4-billion industry in Ontario, there are probably far more architectural—excuse me, I keep going back to architecture—far more interior designers practising in Ontario than probably anywhere else in Canada, maybe as many as are practising in all the rest of Canada.

We need to ensure that this profession is regulated and we need to do it for many reasons. Number one is to make sure that the people are competent. I do not want people hanging out a shingle in any classification or for any job who are not competent, especially people involved in building and building materials. So we need to know that.

We need to set minimum education standards, which this bill will do, so that you can’t just simply take a course for a couple of hours and say that you know what you’re doing. We need to know that people have experience and there must be a length of time for which they must practise or study or intern before they can be licensed. We need to know that there are proper examinations, so that nobody can hang out a shingle and do the work of interior design unless they have passed an examination and, in effect, have a certificate to hang on the wall. We need to legislate and look at the practice.

We need to have a code of ethics so that people, if they think they have been ripped off, know what the code of ethics is, know what to expect and know whether or not their interior designer has met that.

We need to have a complaints process that is driven, so you have somewhere to go where you have someone to complain to, and we need to have a complaint department that can actually act on it, either to get the complainant’s money back or, in some cases, to discipline those who have stepped outside of their profession of interior design or who have made egregious errors. We need that discipline process to be fair. We need it to be transparent. I looked through the bill and it appears that most of that is contained within the body, within the four walls of the bill.

Again, I come back to where I began. We intend to support this bill. We think the bill is overdue. We think the bill is an important bill. We do have the problem raised by Mr. Andrew Bennett, the president of the AATO, and I’m hoping that the member from Mississauga South can address that at the end, but I don’t think it’s insurmountable. It’s certainly not enough for me to say that the bill ought not to go forward. If that can be resolved in committee, so be it. That’s where I expect most of the work and any tinkering will be done.

We need to hear from literally everyone who may be impacted, be they architects, engineers, technologists or building officials, to make sure that every provision of this private member’s bill, which, as I said, is the largest I’ve ever seen before, is correct. Thank you very much.

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): Thank you very much to the member for Mississauga South for bringing this legislation forward. I have to say, when I first encountered this issue, I was campaigning in 2003 and I arrived on the doorstep of a number of constituents—actually a surprising number—in Don Valley West who raised the issue with me. It’s not something that I was aware of.

My children will tell you that I’m not a visual person. I have to see the colour on the wall, I have to see the fixture in place before I can imagine what it’s going to look like, because I can’t imagine things out of context. When I go into a lighting store, it’s just all a big blur to me. I would have to rely on people in this profession for that blend of functional practicality and aesthetics, and I want to come back to that balance, because I think that’s part of the maturing of the profession and the maturing of our culture. I want to make that argument.

In terms of this legislation, I’m very glad that it’s come forward. The arguments have been made by the previous speakers that there are 26 jurisdictions in the United States that already have this legislation and that Nova Scotia has moved it. I think those are compelling arguments and, as the largest province in the country, we need to be looking at codifying some of the things that are, to some extent, in place for some interior designers.

The other thing this bill does is prohibit a person from using the designation “interior designer” or “interior design,” and that’s a point the member for Beaches–East York referenced. People need to know who is and who is not an interior designer. This bill would prohibit the usage of that designation unless the person is registered by the association. So it sets up a body that would make those determinations.

Section 31 provides that the association is governed by a council and then lays out the composition of the council and how those council members would be appointed.

Section 45 provides the council of the association with a broad range of regulation-making powers relating to self-governance.

I certainly take the point from all the members who have spoken that having a broader discussion about this bill in committee would be a good thing, and I think that’s certainly something that the association would welcome. So I do hope that this legislation can go forward.

I want to talk just for a moment about some of the specific sections that I think deal with the public interest. Ontario’s titles act—the member for Peterborough referenced this—restricts only the use of the title “interior designer”; it doesn’t limit who can practice interior design. It’s not a distinction that the general public would be aware of, but it is a distinction that’s important in the practice of creating an interior space that’s safe, and I think that in this case safety is the critical issue.

The other piece is that the legal recognition of the profession through the proposed act will ensure that the public can distinguish between who’s qualified to undertake the full scope of interior design projects and who’s not. There may be people who are qualified to do a bit of what an interior designer is trained to do, but not the full scope. I think that public interest piece is critical.

Section 2 of the bill is where the scope of practice is defined. I know the member for Barrie–Simcoe–Bradford was concerned about impingement on other professions, but I think the legislation is pretty clear about what the scope of practice is. I won’t read the whole section, but just in part:

“2(1) A person practises interior design when the person,

(

a) prepares, provides or implements a design respecting the construction, demolition or management of the enlargement, alteration, configuration, fitting out or furbishing of the interior space of the whole or part of a building, including without limiting the foregoing, finishes, fixed or loose furnishings”—those are the things I can’t see until they’re actually there—“equipment, fixtures and partitioning of space, and related exterior elements such as signs, finishes, glazed openings used for display purposes, the whole as may be further prescribed in the building code....”

That, for me, is a very important part of this legislation: the relationship between what the interior designers do and what the building code prescribes. It’s very important that these people are experts in the building code in terms of these interior spaces.

The last piece I want to talk about is this balance between the aesthetic and the functionality, the balance of practicality, efficiency and aesthetics. Not all of us are able to describe why a building or a particular space makes us feel a certain way. We’re not all able to pull apart the different features.

Last weekend, I was fortunate enough to go to the new opera house in Toronto, and it is a fabulous building. I know I’m going to blur architecture and interior design here just for a minute, because, again, I can’t pull apart the pieces, but obviously an interior designer has worked very closely with the architect in creating the space. Even though the shape of the building works beautifully and makes one feel that one is in a small space, I know that the particular materials that have been used—the warmth of the wood, the colors on the wall—felt like a very Canadian building to me.

I don’t even know if I could describe that, but there’s something about the light in the building and the use of the materials that made me feel safe and at home, like it was part of who I am. That’s the aesthetic. I wasn’t worried about the safety; I assumed the building was safe. But for me, the aesthetics of it—the light and the warmth and the way it all worked—were critical.

I think the maturing of the profession reflects the maturing of our culture. We go to other countries in the world where buildings have been up for hundreds of years. We don’t have that luxury in Ontario, so I think it’s really important that we start building for the future, that we build our heritage now. I think it’s very important that we have people who are trained in combining that aesthetic and that safety, and that’s what this legislation is about. I want people who are working with our architects and engineers who understand that, and who understand how to do those things that will make us feel proud of our buildings for generations to come.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton–Victoria–Brock): I rise today to support Bill 121,

An act respecting interior designers. I commend the member opposite from Mississauga South for bringing it forward, and welcome the members of the association and guests in the gallery today.

When they came to meet me in the office, they brought extensive drawings. I did not realize the extent of their education and what they did in their profession. So it was enlightening for me, and I think the time has come for them to be self-regulated, which is one of the purposes of the bill.

As a nurse and health care professional before, I can tell you that from the hospital or clinic experience, it can make a difference how inviting and comfortable the space is. It needs to be functional. Materials need to minimize the growth of bacteria, need to withstand the sanitation process and be non-allergic. These are the skills that interior designers can offer to projects, skills that enhance the well-being of our communities.

If a patient needs to be transported, you have to have the stretcher width in the hallways. We were sometimes asked for input, as nurses, from our practical experience when they were doing expansions of the hospital. Interior designers assess and anticipate all these needs and are able to draft a schematic to meet these needs. You want to have well-trained individuals responsible for designing an exit strategy in the event of a fire. They bring a knowledge base to this.

Ontario is one of seven provinces with title protection for interior designers. It was back in our government’s time that we introduced title protection in, 1999, to restrict the use of the title “interior designer” to those individuals who met the qualifications of their association, which is the Association of Registered Interior Designers of Ontario. Since that time, the profession has expanded, it’s grown, and now Bill 121 will provide the interior designer community with the same self-regulatory status that exists for architects and engineers.

Concerns have been brought forward by different members and that’s why we’re having second reading debate. We’re starting to initiate some of those concerns. We’re asking that it certainly be sent to committee so that all the other professions and the community can contribute to decisions to make this bill final, and hopefully bring it back for third reading with a consensus from all those interested parties.

I’m running out of time. I again commend the member for bringing this forward and the association for continuing—I know it sometimes takes a long time, and you’ve been a long time trying to bring this into the Legislature, to get it right. When we see it go to committee, there will be opportunity to comment and make changes as needed. I hope all members of the Legislature will be in support of the passage of this.

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

Mr. Peterson: It’s a great pleasure to wrap up. May I start on a personal note and thank the member from Peterborough for the personal notes about my parents. They are a very special influence in my life and have contributed greatly to Ontario. I always appreciate them being mentioned.

To the members from Barrie–Simcoe–Bradford, Leeds–Grenville, Don Valley West and Haliburton–Victoria–Brock, I very much appreciate their comments, and yes, we will be referring this bill to committee.

It is the desire of ARIDO to be inclusive in having all qualified people who practise here in Ontario included in it. This is not an exclusatory act; it wants to be inclusive. I must say I’m very impressed by the quality of their membership. I think the member from Beaches–East York got it best when he said, “Peterson couldn’t write a bill with 26 pages himself.” It’s the great quality of the people here who put this bill together and made this the professional document that it is.

We will refer it to committee to make sure that the best of people practising interior design are allowed to practise and that everybody is included in that practice. The strength of an organization is in the strength of its numbers and its quality, and this bill is here to assure that.

I think it’s also wonderful that this organization has come forward to regulate themselves. Too often people come to government and say, “We want you to do something for us. We want you to discipline us.” I see it as a much better role for organizations to come forward and say, “We are capable of managing ourselves. We are professionals. We have the ability to work with ourselves and to control an industry.” As other members have pointed out, what a large and successful industry this is in Ontario.

I look forward to taking this to committee and I look forward very much to this bill passing today, and I really appreciate your support. Thank you very much.

Sexual Harassment Awareness Week Act, 2006 Loi de 2006 sur la semaine de la sensibilisation au harcèlement sexuel

Mr. Hoy moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 110,

An Act to proclaim Sexual Harassment Awareness Week / Projet de loi 110, Loi proclamant la Semaine de la sensibilisation au harcèlement sexuel.

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

Mr. Pat Hoy (Chatham–Kent Essex): In memory of Theresa Vince, I bring forward Bill 110,

An Act to proclaim Sexual Harassment Awareness Week, for second reading. This bill will proclaim each first week in June as Sexual Harassment Awareness Week. The objective is to raise public awareness, foster change in societal attitudes and behaviour, and prevent another tragedy from occurring. This proclamation is in keeping with the jury recommendation at the inquest into the workplace murder of Theresa on June 2, 1996.

I’m honoured to have Theresa’s family, friends and advocates here in the members’ gallery today to support Bill 110. I would like to thank Jim Vince, Theresa’s husband; and her daughter, Catherine Kedziora. Also with us are Michelle Schryer, executive director of the Chatham-Kent Sexual Assault Crisis Centre, and Joy Lang, community liaison officer for the Centre for Research on Violence Against Women and Children at the University of Western Ontario. I thank you for your support. Bill 110 also has the support of the Sexual Assault and Violence Intervention Services of Halton and the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres.

I pay special tribute to the Vince family who, over the last 10 years, have never stopped advocating for changes so that other families may be spared the grief of losing a loved one in a preventable tragedy. Their strength, courage and tenacity have made the Vince family pillars in our community.

I had the honour and privilege to attend a memorial for Theresa on June 2 of this year. It marked the 10th anniversary of her death following a workplace sexual harassment. She had been sexually harassed for several years by her direct supervisor before he killed her at work. Her death shocked the entire community and exposed a serious problem that cannot be ignored any longer.

In 1991, the federal government designated December 6 as a National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. Provincially, no province has proclaimed a Sexual Harassment Awareness Week. If Bill 110 becomes law, Ontario will become a leader in this much overdue step to protect women against sexual harassment.

What is sexual harassment? According to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, sexual harassment means that someone is bothering you by saying or doing unwanted or unwelcome things of a sexual or gender-related nature. For example, someone who makes unwelcome sexual or gender-related remarks and gestures by touching you inappropriately, making offensive jokes or remarks about women or men, making sexual requests or suggestions, staring at you, making unwelcome comments about your body, displaying sexually offensive pictures or being verbally abusive to you because of your gender.

Sexual harassment does not have to be sexual in nature. It can also mean that someone is bothering you simply because you are a man or a woman. Making stereotypes about one gender or another can be a form of sexual harassment. It is prohibited under all human rights legislation in Canada, yet it remains a major concern. The Ontario Women’s Justice Network reported that 80% to 90% of Canadian women will experience sexual harassment at some point in their working lives. While sexual harassment often occurs in the workplace, it may also take place outside of a work setting.

It could occur at a school, within an association, while travelling on business or a business function. It occurs in large and small organizations.

Women file significantly more sexual harassment complaints than do men, although women make up nearly half of the workforce in Ontario. Sexual harassment is a form of violence against women. More public education is required to address this problem. According to a report called Assessing Violence Against Women: A Statistical Profile, commissioned by the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers Responsible for the Status of Women, “Violence against women is a serious and pervasive threat to women’s health, with detrimental social and economic consequences for society.”

Sexual harassment interferes with a woman’s safety, her dignity and her equality. It creates long-term emotional, physical and economic consequences for women. Theresa’s death will never be forgotten and is a very tragic example of the seriousness of the consequences flowing from sexual harassment. Some of the experiences I read about while researching this topic are too horrific to repeat. A study of all sexual harassment complaints filed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission over a 17-year period showed that women filing sexual harassment complaints were no longer in the job they were originally in when the harassment occurred. One of the victims writes:

“I was so messed up.... I had been in remission and now thanks to him, my health has been jeopardized. I have lost my self-respect, my confidence and trust in others. He has taken away a part of me. No one should be made to feel this way. All I ever wanted was to make something of myself, be a success. Now I have to start again.”

I attended a meeting in London some years ago, where a woman gave her history into a sexual harassment case. It was truly horrific. I have never reported her account to anyone else. It is just simply horrific, and in my mind bordered very close on torture.

As stated in the 2001 federal, provincial and territorial ministers’ report, Women’s Economic Dependence and Security, “Sexual harassment is emotionally abusive and creates an unhealthy and unproductive atmosphere in the workplace. Besides the stress, fear of physical harm and emotional damage suffered by victims, many studies show significant work-related costs to both the victim of harassment and the employer. Many women victims of harassment will use leave time in order to avoid the situation. Other women may quit their jobs.

Some will stay in the job and try to ignore the harassment, often resulting in a drop in their work productivity. Sexual harassment violations are among the most frequent complaints received by human rights agencies, and are costly for employers who fail to have effective policies or do not treat such complaints from their employees or customers and clients seriously.”

With her complaints not addressed, Theresa chose to take early retirement to escape her harassment. She was just days away from retirement when she was killed.

I quote a letter from the Sexual Assault and Violence Intervention Services of Halton: “A 1998 report on workplace violence by the International Labour Organization found that Canada ranks fourth out of 32 countries for the number of women assaulted in the workplace. It is well past time that the government of Ontario demonstrates, at the very minimum, an awareness of the devastation and danger of sexual harassment.”

Government has a key role to play. We must recognize sexual harassment as a serious problem and work to eradicate it. We must educate and make society better, understanding that this is harmful, unacceptable and intolerable behaviour. Raising awareness will have a positive impact on reducing incidents.

According to the Workplace Harassment and Violence Report by the Centre for Research on Violence Against Women and Children, “While some women confront their harasser, the majority of women cope in other ways, such as avoiding the harasser, denying the experience is happening and blaming themselves.” Raising awareness will provide victims of sexual harassment information about resources, support and remedies available. Attitude change is a precursor to behavioural change. Changing attitude is a stepping stone to changing the actual behaviour.

We must also set an example for younger generations. Attitudes about sexual harassment against women and girls are formed at a young age. It is important that we engage children and youth in discussions about the importance of equality and respect in all our relationships. Fostering this healthy value would create a harassment-free workplace and community.

Sexual harassment can cause serious and lasting harm and, sadly, it can lead to death. Everyone should have the right to full and equal safe participation in the workplace and in the community. This bill will help to advance women’s safety and equality in the workplace as well as complement the sweeping changes our government is making to strengthening the Ontario human rights system.

Sexual harassment is an issue that transcends all party lines. We in this House have the responsibility to stand up and lend our collective voices against sexual harassment. I ask all members of the Legislature to support and pass Bill 110 into law.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie–Simcoe–Bradford): I am certainly pleased to join in the debate on Bill 110. Sexual harassment obviously is a serious issue. It’s covered under the Human Rights Code. Sexual harassment is not confined to harassment against females. It also involves prohibiting harassment against males, people by their sexual orientation and also females, to be specific, so sexual harassment covers a broader spectrum than just females under the Human Rights Code. That’s something that is significant and I think needs to be noted with respect to what the member is trying to accomplish here, fully understanding the background of the tragic situation that he’s discussing here today.

I remember that probably the first leading case with respect to sexual harassment—because the Human Rights Code evolved over the years. There was a time when it did not cover harassment; it was amended to specifically deal with harassment. There’s a specific

section in the Human Rights Code that defines what harassment is. Under the Human Rights Code, harassment is prohibited on any prohibited ground, be it racial, ethnic background, religious background or of a sexual nature.

I can remember a case I was working on when I was an articling student back in the early 1980s. It was a case involving Commodore Business Machines. It was a very serious case and it had a lot of coverage by the media because it was the first really high-profile case involving sexual harassment in the province. It was a case that led not only to a finding of sexual harassment but also to even further changes in the workplace to protect females from harassment.

I think the member is correct. We need to have more public awareness about what is allowed or what isn’t allowed. As members of the Legislative Assembly, we have a policy. It’s called Mutual Respect in Our Workplace: Maintaining a Positive Work Environment, which was implemented in February 2001. In the booklet, on page 6, it has a

section starting, “Understanding Harassment.” It deals with personal harassment, poisoned environments and, specifically, sexual harassment. I’ll read it for the members today:

“Sexual harassment is defined as any unwelcome comment or conduct of a sexual nature that may detrimentally affect the work environment or lead to adverse job-related consequences for the victim of harassment. A person has a right to be free from:

“—sexual harassment by an employer, co-worker or agent of an employer

“—sexual solicitation from persons in a position of power

“—reprisal, or threat of reprisal.”

Then it goes on to say, “What Does Harassment Look Like?

“Harassing behaviour is not always easy to determine. What is deemed appropriate behaviour to one person may be seen as offensive to another. Harassment is judged subjectively, so we need to be sensitive to others’ standards and reactions. If you’re unsure whether your behaviour is welcome, show good judgment and refrain from making the comment or displaying the action in question.

“Some Examples of Physical Harassment:

“—unwanted touching on any part of the body

“—standing too close

“—unwanted brushing against another’s body

“—physical attack.

“Some Examples of Verbal Harassment:

“—racial or ethnic slurs or slang

“—use of terms”—I won’t get into that too deeply here—

“—unwelcome remarks, jokes, taunts or suggestions

“—use of terms such as ‘honey’, ‘hunk’, ‘babe’, etc.

“—verbal abuse or threats

“—unwelcome sexual remarks, invitations or requests.

“Some Examples of Non-Verbal Harassment:

“—suggestive staring or leering

“—displays of sexist, pornographic, racist material such as pin-ups, cartoons, etc.

“—abuse of authority (e.g. discriminatory work allocation or opportunities)

“—written abuse or threats.

“Personal and sexual harassment is unsolicited, unwanted, coercive, and one-sided. The Office of the Legislative Assembly will not tolerate harassment.”

We have a procedure here that deals with maintaining respect in the workplace and a procedure to deal with that particular problem. What I think the member from Chatham–Kent Essex is correct in, with respect to dealing with this, is that we need to have measures in the workplace where a person can go forward when they feel that something is happening which they don’t believe is right, that there’s confidentiality and most of all that there is a procedure in place that will stop anything happening that obviously could lead to something that is not what should happen in a workplace. People should be respected.

They should believe that they can go to their workplace and be treated with civility and decency and the respect that they deserve. That’s part of the working relationship that we have and that we should maintain in any workplace.

Unfortunately, not every employer has a policy such as that in the province. They should. It’s required by the Ontario Human Rights Code to make sure that their workplace is free from sexual harassment, racial harassment, ethnic harassment—any type of harassment that is protected by the Human Rights Code.

I think what’s really important is to make sure that there’s a mechanism in place that will make sure that the person who is being harassed or perceives being harassed can go forward, and there are some real sanctions and protections for that individual, and we don’t face ourselves with a situation like we’re discussing here today, which is not only tragic but something that should have been stopped in the workplace, had the employer had a policy in place to do that and that it worked.

I fully support the intentions of the member. I know that we’ll have public hearings on this and certainly I would expect the Ontario Human Rights Commission, with their new chairperson, Barbara Hall, to appear at those hearings to make sure that the Legislative Assembly is comfortable that what’s being proclaimed here can be followed in the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s mandate.

We know that we have laws and everything, but we also have to make sure that there’s an education process going forth that will make sure that sexual harassment or harassment of any type prohibited by the code—that there is not only education but there also is a mechanism in place to make sure that it doesn’t happen or lead to tragic consequences as we’re discussing here today.

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel (Lambton–Kent–Middlesex): I’m certainly pleased to be able to join in the debate on Bill 110. Before I get into the matter of the bill itself, I actually want to commend the member for Chatham–Kent Essex for introducing this. When it’s an issue that affects, as he has said, between 80% and 90% of women, you would expect that a woman would have introduced this type of bill. I find that for Mr. Hoy to do this—I have to commend him on that.

I also want to say welcome to the family. I’m sure you’re here with some very mixed feelings. It’s important that this be recognized, but all the same, it brings back a lot of memories. I want to welcome you here.

The bill is intended to create a week in recognition of sexual harassment, but what it does in creating that week is also the recognition of the problem. I think until we recognize that there is a problem, we are a long way from dealing with the issue. So by having a week and creating the awareness, we are going to also start dealing with the problem and try to develop some solutions.

When we talk about 80% to 90% of women being exposed to this at some point in their lives, it’s an overwhelming number, and it’s a frightening number for women who have to look at their future and expect to have to deal with this at some point in their work lives or in their personal lives. I know there will be people who say, “Well, why don’t you just walk away? If it’s a problem where you’re working, just get out of there and go on to something else.” But I know from my own experience in small communities like my riding, you don’t just walk away to another job. It’s not that easy.

First of all, there’s not always alternative employment available to you. Secondly, you are going to lose the seniority you have developed over the years that you’ve worked there. You may end up taking a cut in pay in order to do that, and economically that may be a problem for you and your family. So to simply say, “Well, if it’s a problem where you’re working, just get out of the situation”—it isn’t that easy.

I look at this and I see this from the point of view of a mother and a grandmother. Even as a woman, I think, “Okay, I can deal with this. I’m strong and, if it happens, I can deal with this.” I look at it in terms of my own daughters and my granddaughters and my grandsons and my son, because, as was stated, it isn’t just an issue for the female gender. It goes right across, but it is predominantly female. I look at that and I think, “What can I do?

How am I going to be able to protect my daughters and my children and my grandchildren from this kind of thing?” When you look at the stats that say 80% to 90%, that means my daughters and my children and my grandchildren are going to have to deal with this, and it is a very frightening situation.

In doing some research on this issue, I came across some studies, and I want to just read part of this into the record: “Some studies have shown that up 80% of girls in schools have experienced sexual harassment.” That’s at school already. That’s very early. “A 2005 high school harassment study conducted by York University showed that up to 75% of the students had experienced harassment in a three-month period. Students reported effects which included depression, loss of self-esteem, delinquency and substance abuse.”

I think to have to deal with that, to contend with that so early in life is terrible. And it’s not just for the people it happens to, it’s not just the victims, but there are others who are in the environment with them and who are victimized by it too. If you’re there and you’re watching this happening and you’re feeling helpless to deal with it, you’re feeling helpless to do anything that will support the individual who is being harassed, then you are victimized as well. So even if it doesn’t happen directly to a person, just by being in the same environment, that environment has been poisoned for everyone there and not just for the victim.

As I said earlier, until we recognize that there’s a problem, until we deal with that—and one of the ways we can do that is by designating this week, as the member for Chatham–Kent Essex has proposed. Until we do that, we are a long way from finding solutions and dealing with ways that we can help those individuals and stop this from happening in the future.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton–Victoria–Brock): I rise today in support of Bill 110,

An Act to proclaim Sexual Harassment Awareness Week, and commend the member for Chatham–Kent Essex for bringing it forward. I would like to say that it would be nice if it was not necessary to bring such a bill forward. The member who spoke before me certainly made the point that we have to make more people aware: It does exist. That is the reason for this bill. Bill 110 will heighten the awareness of Ontarians that this issue still exists in our society and that there are steps we can take to prevent an escalation of harassment.

What is sexual harassment? It’s an unwelcome sexual advance, a request for sexual favours, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. Whether sexual harassment is from a supervisor, coworkers or customers, it’s an attempt to assert power over another person. The harassment may take place in your work setting, outside of your work setting, in your home, while you’re travelling on business or at a business function.

And 80% to 90% of Canadian women will experience sexual harassment at some point in their working lives. That figure is inexcusable to me. It’s a startling statistic. I’m sure it’s the same to all members of the Legislature.

Society has recognized that women can be anything they desire, and we’ve begun to truly support those goals and ambitions, but there still remain pockets of our society that do not want to see women advance and are threatened by their success.

Many employers and human resource departments have recognized the value of raising awareness of sexual harassment in the workplace. Where at one point in time it was swept under the rug, there are now specially designed training programs that provide managers and employees with the tools, knowledge and skills they need to recognize, stop and prevent all forms of harassing behaviour.

Various companies specialize in supporting organizations and companies that are committed to preventing harassment by providing a comprehensive approach to behaviour change, using program modules tied to business realities, skill-building practice and take-away tools, so there are numerous benefits to providing harassment prevention programs.

Formal programs increase the ability to assess harassment behaviours in situations before they escalate. They support the organization’s overall systems and policies and reinforce the code of conduct that already exists in many places of business. Programs build skills for receiving complaints and for participating in the investigative process where the complainant can feel comfortable and without fear of company reprisal.

Programs also assist individuals’ ability to understand and communicate concerns and boundaries, and this is a very important part that A-type business people often forget. They’re people who have trouble setting boundaries, who want to please their boss, but do not know where to draw the line for fear of reprisal or dismissal. If people become more adept at recognizing and establishing boundaries, you can avoid a difficult situation before it can escalate into harassment.

Harassment can be a gradual process that builds over time, and the boundaries become blurred with what is often misconstrued as friendship. The difference can be felt in the pit of your stomach, when you know that something is just not right, but you feel a loss of control or guilt at that point. I hope Bill 110 will create the awareness necessary to demonstrate that it’s never too late to put the brakes on, to say, “Whoa, wait a minute here. This is not what I had in mind.” That takes courage, it takes empowerment, and we need to provide awareness to make that happen.

Harassment, as I said before, is not a recent development, but openly discussing it makes us more aware. Some examples have been mentioned about stares and leers and jokes. It can escalate to name-calling, calls and whistles. It starts to get much more offensive, such as derogatory pictures and materials on display, or cornering and blocking your exit and path, standing too close to you, following you home and pressuring you for sexual activity. Should it escalate further, the individual is at risk to be a victim of sexual assault.

There are serious mental health issues that are directly linked to higher rates of work-related trauma, including violence, harassment and workplace conflict. Rod Philips, president and CEO of WarrenShepell Corp., adds that “Canadian employers cannot afford to be complacent about the sources of stress that cause and lead to toxic workplaces.” Workplace homicide is the second most common cause of death in US organizations, according to figures published by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health.

It seems that we pay attention to workplace violence in short bursts, such as the immediate aftermath of a high-profile workplace shooting. We sit up and take notice. But we have a responsibility to be concerned with violence and abuse every day. No organization is immune, and you have to have the systems in place to detect the warning signs early on.

Bill 110 places the issue of sexual harassment in the forefront of our minds, at least for a week, and gives employers a sober second thought, with statistics that demonstrate how prevalent this issue really is, and the programs that can help make the difference. Eliminating, or at least reducing, incidents of sexual harassment not only makes good moral and legal sense; it makes good business sense. In a recent study of 144 women and 59 men, 31% of the female team members had experienced at least one sexual harassing behaviour during the previous two years.

Sexual hostility has been found to be particularly damaging for team initiatives and projects, as the acts are often hostile and overtly sexual. In a team dynamic, it’s not just an issue between the offender and their victim; it’s now an issue that the entire team is confronted with, and is now responsible for the outcome.

My hope is that Bill 110 will generate public information that will provide the necessary tools to help groups rise to the challenge. I can bring forward my past experience as a nurse and say I’ve witnessed many of the physical manifestations of sexual harassment, from headaches to nausea, ulcers, sleep deprivation, eating disorders, drug and alcohol dependency, and illness.

Obviously, sexual harassment takes an emotional toll in many ways, and when it occurs on the job, can lead to loss of income, loss of job skills, reassignment, decrease in work performance, absenteeism and inability to work.

The future effects are an inability to trust others, stress-related physical problems and symptoms, loss of job recommendations, loss of career opportunities and loss of economic opportunities.

We owe it to all those people who have experienced this to highlight this. I believe Bill 110 does that and I will be supporting it.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): It’s my pleasure to speak today in a very supportive way on Bill 110, the bill that seeks to proclaim Sexual Harassment Awareness Week in the province of Ontario.

I want to start my comments by commending the member from Chatham–Kent Essex for bringing this bill forward. The member, I know, has worked very closely with the Chatham-Kent Sexual Assault Crisis Centre in his riding. They’ve done a heck of a lot of work on sexual harassment and violence against women and prevention, on recommending draft legislation, and running programs and supporting women in their community who have been victimized by male violence. I know the member works closely with them and I want to commend both him and the agency for all the work they do on behalf of women in that community.

As legislators, we owe a great debt of gratitude to all our sexual assault centres across the province. They do incredible work, most times with very limited funding. They work on the front lines, constantly trying to bring us solutions and trying to tackle problems day to day that arise in their community around violence against women.

We all know that Sexual Assault Prevention Month has been with us, has been recognized every year, every May, in the province of Ontario, since 1988 when that bill was first brought forward. The proposal to designate the first week of June as Sexual Harassment Awareness Week will be giving this issue of sexual harassment the prominence it deserves and requires in Ontario.

I believe very strongly that the issue of sexual harassment needs to stand alone as an issue that faces women and others in Ontario. Sexual harassment, as we know and as we have seen far too many times, tragically, is a bit of a gateway to other forms of sexual violence against women. It has literally cost women their lives. I know that’s one of reasons the member has brought this forward, specifically, and I’ll get to that a little later on.

Sexual slurs and threats, rude remarks and gestures, stalking, unwanted touching, staring—these are the odious symptoms and signs of sexual harassment. Rape, sexual assault, forcible confinement and murder can be the result of those very symptoms if they continue and are left unchecked in our communities, in our society.

Sexual harassment is too often treated by society as merely an unpleasant nuisance or a crude party joke rather than a crime that can lead to devastating crimes against women. Sexual harassment is illegal in Ontario under the Human Rights Code and since 1991 has been the fastest growing area of complaints in Ontario.

We need a law in Ontario that covers all aspects of harassment, particularly sexual harassment, in recognition of the need to protect basic human rights and for people to be safe and free from harassment. In fact, members will know that I have my own private member’s bill in that regard as well, which would bring sexual harassment and other forms of harassment into the Occupational Health and Safety Act in the province of Ontario, so that people can refuse to work in an environment, in a workplace that is poisoned by harassment.

I want to thank the member from Chatham–Kent Essex, because I know that he was interested in that issue as well. The bill that I’m speaking of, Bill 45, would require employers to protect employees subject to harassment on the job, to investigate and to put an end to harassment in the workplace.

The member’s bill is one that takes the lead on the issue of identifying sexual harassment and acknowledging that as a society we need to turn our eye to that problem if we’re ever going to be able to eradicate it, and for women and others who are subject to harassment to have the support of the rest of us. In fact, as a woman, I can tell you, the statistics are clear: 80% of women, four out of five women, are sexually harassed at one time or another in their lives. That’s probably no stranger to any women sitting in this House or, unfortunately, any young women sitting in the galleries.

It’s a condemnation of our society that we still allow sexual harassment to occur. So this member’s bill, I think by highlighting that issue, will require us all to redouble our efforts to say that this is not tolerable, this is not appropriate and this is something we will not accept in the province of Ontario.

The passionate concern that the MPP for Chatham–Kent Essex brings to this issue is the result, of course, of his representing the community where Theresa Vince was killed at work in 1996 by her supervisor, who had been sexually harassing her at their workplace year after year, without her being able to get that issue resolved.

In fact, I’m going to take the time—and I’m sure the member has done it as well—to read the

preamble of the bill, where he indicates, “Sexual Harassment Awareness Week is being proclaimed in memory of Theresa Vince, who was brutally murdered in Chatham by her workplace supervisor. For years, Theresa Vince was a victim of ongoing and persistent sexual harassment perpetrated by her supervisor.

“The first week of June has been chosen as Sexual Harassment Awareness Week because June 2 marks the anniversary of Theresa Vince’s death. The majority of women will experience sexual harassment at some point in their working lives,” and it continues to explain why the bill is necessary. The member tabled this bill for first reading in the Legislature 10 years to the day after we lost Theresa Vince as a result of a brutal escalation of sexual harassment in the workplace.

Interestingly enough, I took the opportunity to pull out some of the recommendations from the coroner’s jury upon the death of Theresa Vince, when the coroner’s office investigated and the jury came out with some recommendations. A number of them speak specifically to the kinds of issues that I’ve already mentioned:

“To employers:

“—Consider implementation of confidential sources of emotional, psychological and psychiatric assistance such as employee assistance programs.

“—Educate employees on recognizing indicators of excessive stress or depression.

“—Have effective workplace harassment and discrimination policies and procedures set out for employees.”

It goes on with a number of employer responsibilities or employer actions that should be taking place to prevent these kinds of tragedies in the future.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission’s recommendation: “Encourage victims to come forward as the commission offers neutral investigations. The commission must investigate.”

Unfortunately, with the changes to the Human Rights Commission that this government is bringing forward under Bill 107, these investigations will no longer be taking place, and that is a frightening prospect. These are some of the very issues of concern that we’ve been raising around the changes being brought forward to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. There will no longer be an investigative opportunity, so that the public good type of investigations like sexual harassment investigations will not be undertaken any longer.

It will be up to the victim to hire a lawyer and get private investigators to do the investigation, as opposed to it coming directly from the commission. This is a tragic step backwards, in my opinion, and will have extremely negative effects on women particularly and others who are being harassed.

Also, “Develop an advertisement campaign to promote public awareness and education.” I think this is exactly what the member is doing in proclaiming the week in Bill 110. He is saying that we have to bring attention, we have to promote, we have to educate and we have to let people know what sexual harassment is.

There are a number of other recommendations to the Ministry of Labour and the provincial government, such as, “Maintain and provide the Ontario Human Rights Commission with the resources it needs to carry out its mandate.” Again, unfortunately, the mandate is being changed to prevent any of these investigations from coming forward.

Nonetheless, I thought it was important to acknowledge that the bill is an important piece of what we need do, but also let us not go backwards when it comes to other pieces of legislation that could negatively affect our ability to move forward in the case of eradicating sexual harassment in Ontario.

Unfortunately, the horrific stories like that of Theresa Vince continue to occur. In fact, every day I open my newspaper and see another situation where there has been a woman either sexually assaulted or sexually harassed. Usually the harassment cases don’t get to the newspaper until, unfortunately, they are cases like that of Theresa Vince, where the issues have gone far too long ignored and have resulted in violent acts.

In fact, just on Monday, I opened my paper to see, “Women Assaulted, Bound to Captor,” a headline in the Hamilton Spectator, indicating that a woman was found covered in blood and bound to a man with a rope. She was rescued by a passing police officer after being sexually assaulted and marched nearly two kilometres through downtown Niagara Falls on Friday night. These are the kinds of things that are happening to women in our communities on a daily basis.

So there’s no doubt that we have to act. We have to act with anti-harassment legislation, and we have to act with this bill that’s in front of us. I’ll be very proud to be here in about 15 minutes or so when we vote in favour of this bill. I support it wholeheartedly.

I have a number of other issues that I want to discuss, though, around the attitudes and the incidences of sexual violence against women. Statistics point specifically to immediate and concrete action needing to occur: yes, the education and, yes, the changes to legislation that are outstanding. Why?

Many have already indicated in this debate that two out of three women experience sexual assault; 38% of sexually assaulted women were assaulted by their husbands, common-law partners or boyfriends; four out of five female undergraduates—are you listening, young girls in the audience today?—surveyed at a Canadian university said they had been victims of violence in dating relationship; 29% reported incidents of sexual assault; and 22% of women who have been victims never tell anyone. They suffer in silence, in degrading, dehumanizing, humiliating silence.

Across Canada in 1998, 82.6% of victims in reported cases of sexual assault were women and 98% of the accused were men. Canada ranks fourth out of 32 countries for the number of women assaulted in the workplace, according to a 1998 report of the ILO, the International Labour Organization.

Interestingly enough, my local sexual assault centre has spent some time trying to work with young women and help young women address the issues of sexual harassment and sexual violence, and I laud them for doing that. It’s unfortunate that these days school is not the safe place that we think it should be, particularly for young women. They are sexually harassed on a daily basis and they are sexually assaulted by boys at school. That is something that we need to change, not only for the girls but for the boys as well.

They should not feel that they have to behave in that way to get attention or for any other reason. So as parents and as legislators we need to tell girls that it’s not acceptable, but we also need to make sure we’re telling boys that it’s not acceptable behaviour either.

In terms of Sexual Harassment Awareness Week, what I would most hope is that the we would eventually be able to declare the that age of harassing and victimizing women is over, but we’re very far from that, unfortunately. Sexual assault centres, as we know, are still suffering from cuts that they received several years ago. They still haven’t been able to make up the cumulative effect of those cuts over the years. We need to fund those crisis centres adequately.

We need to not only restore the cuts but invest in some ambitious programming of prevention, services and supports backed up by strong anti-harassment laws, by this very bill, Sexual Harassment Awareness Week. If we do some of these things, we can really have an impact on young women and young people in our communities.

There are a number of other issues that need to be indicated. People sometimes think they can label this kind of behaviour based on a certain type of person, and it’s certainly not true. Men who sexually harass women come from every economic, ethnic, racial, age and social group. They can be any type of profession—doctors, teachers, employers, co-workers, lawyers—husbands, students, colleagues or relatives of the women they are harassing or abusing. So the people that we need to reach we need to reach through our institutions, through our places of worship, through websites, through publications, through family structures.

Interestingly enough, one of the groups of people that has come forward recently to this Legislature is a group of a young women who have put together something called the Miss G. Project. Members might recall that they’ve been here on a couple of occasions now. But that’s one of the kinds of projects that, if we could get that moving forward—what that does basically is require women’s studies to become a course of study in high schools across the province.

By bringing women’s studies into the regular course of study in the high school curriculum, you’re beginning to teach young people—girls and boys—the value of women’s contributions. To this point in time, that has not been the case. Oftentimes, women’s contributions historically to our cities and to our province and to our country are sidelined when it comes to the curriculum. Unfortunately, that has only been a way of continuing to minimize women and their contribution and their importance in the ongoing legislation, the ongoing creation of a caring and just society.

By doing things like supporting, for example, the initiatives of the Miss G. Project women, who are saying that women’s studies need to be part of the high school curriculum, we can then begin to build in some of the places where women’s contributions are respected and valued, as opposed to minimized and leading to harassment.

I’ve run out of time; I have so many more things to say. Again, I thank the member for bringing this bill forward and I’m happy to support it.

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron–Bruce): I’m very pleased to rise today to support Bill 110,

An Act to proclaim Sexual Harassment Awareness Week. I too want to acknowledge the Vince family, Jim and Catherine, the courage it must take to come forward today. Congratulations. You’re taking a tragedy and turning it into a positive step forward. For that, I thank you.

One of the things I want to talk about is not only the member for Chatham–Kent Essex—the courage it takes to bring this bill forward today I believe is commendable. I also want to congratulate you, the member, for bringing it forward today. When we talk about what we can do as parliamentarians to make our communities better places to live, I believe that awareness and education bring about sustainable change within our communities, and only that will bring about change that will go into the next generations.

I come from a family of three girls and I raised two girls, so for me it can be a bit difficult when I talk about the different situations that women can find themselves in. I know that it’s not only women who are affected, but I’m going to speak specifically to women, with the understanding that I know it is more than women; men are affected as well. But just the sheer numbers lend the conversation I’m going to have to speak to women alone.

I had the opportunity to go to the women’s shelter in Bruce county, which also provides counselling, specifically for sexual harassment. One of the ladies decided to tell me their story. They started off by telling how they arrived at the women’s shelter. They all of a sudden decided they wanted to change their mind and wanted to disagree a little bit. They started to shake; they were so upset that they wanted to change their minds or their opinion. One of the ladies sitting beside the other lady put her hand on the other one and said, “It’s okay. You’re allowed to say ‘no’ here. You’re safe.” It’s something that has stayed with me a very long time.

When you come from a family of very strong, independent women, you need to listen to the stories. We’ve all, as women, experienced sexual harassment. None of us standing here would be telling the whole story if we didn’t say, especially in the nature of our positions, that at some time we had experienced it, but it’s how we deal with it. It’s the ability to come forward and to tell your story and to feel that you have the security to tell your story: That is what this will do. It provides a basis, a foundation, for education so that people know it’s not acceptable behaviour.

It’s just not “on,” as we say from my riding. That’s what we have to get: that level of understanding, the level of comfort for people to come forward and to tell their stories and to know that they are very sure that that is unacceptable behaviour. That is where we need to get to, and we will get there through education, through community awareness. That is where I believe the strength is.

When we look at how much has changed from one generation to the next generation, we have so much more work to do, and we are in a position where we can make a difference in our communities by going out and giving people the opportunities. If they can’t speak, if their voices aren’t strong enough, we can talk for them. We can tell their stories. We can bring about a difference and we can make a difference. We can work through the bullying in our schools when we talk about how that’s not acceptable. That’s where it begins. We need to build a strong foundation, and the member from Chatham–Kent Essex recognizes this. He recognizes this is where we need to go. So with that, I support it.

It also is a barrier for women to move into what I would call non-traditional workplaces. Sexual harassment can be and is a barrier. What we can do to eliminate those barriers, to give the tools to all of the people of Ontario, is, I believe, the direction that we all want to go. So I want to thank the member for giving me the opportunity. I could go on for hours, but thank you very much.

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry–Prescott–Russell): I’m delighted to be able to participate in this debate. For Ontarians, this is a very important bill brought forward by our esteemed colleague, my adviser on agricultural issues, the member from Chatham–Kent Essex.

The bill is to foster change in social attitudes and behaviour surrounding sexual harassment and to prevent other tragedies from happening.

Qu’est-ce que le harcèlement sexuel ?

Le harcèlement sexuel signifie que quelqu’un vous importune par des paroles ou des agissements qui vous indisposent ou par des remarques ou suggestions à connotation sexuelle ou liées à l’appartenance sexuelle—par exemple, une personne qui vous importune en faisant des remarques ou des gestes inconvenants liés au sexe, en vous touchant de façon inappropriée, en faisant des plaisanteries ou des remarques offensantes de nature sexuelle sur les femmes ou les hommes, en faisant des propositions de rapports intimes ou en demandant des faveurs sexuelles, en vous fixant ou en faisant des commentaires inconvenants sur votre corps, en exposant des images offensantes à cause de leur nature sexuelle, ou en étant abusif envers vous en raison de votre sexe.

Sexual harassment is a form of violence against women, although it also can happen and has happened to men or between members of the same sex. It can cause death or serious and lasting harm.

Employers, contractors, professional associations, unions, and people who provide rental housing accommodations and other services have to make sure that sexual harassment does not occur on their property, in their workplace or within their facilities.

La première semaine en juin est idéale comme Semaine de la sensibilisation au harcèlement sexuel parce que le 2 juin marque l’anniversaire du décès de Theresa Vince. Nous avons avec nous dans la galerie aujourd’hui l’époux de la défunte Vince, et sa fille Catherine. Thanks for being here with us today.

Selon les statistiques, la majorité des femmes seront victimes de harcèlement sexuel au cours de leur vie professionnelle. La proclamation de la Semaine de la sensibilisation au harcèlement sexuel vise à sensibiliser davantage le public au harcèlement sexuel, à promouvoir un changement dans les attitudes et les comportements sociaux à cet égard, et à empêcher qu’une autre tragédie de ce genre ne survienne.

Chacun a le droit de participer pleinement et sur un pied d’égalité à la vie de la collectivité, et ce en toute sécurité.

We must recognize sexual harassment as a serious problem and play a role in eliminating it. To proclaim the first week in June as Sexual Harassment Awareness Week, as is proposed in this bill, is a great way to raise awareness. This is always the first step in changing attitudes. This type of bill shows the importance of private members’ time to allow the MPPs to promote issues that are important and to debate bills that cross party lines. We can certainly all acknowledge the importance of sensitizing the public to the horror of sexual harassment and to its serious and sometimes deadly consequences.

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

Mr. Hoy: I want to thank the members who spoke on my bill this morning: the members for Barrie–Simcoe–Bradford, Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, Haliburton–Victoria–Brock, Hamilton East, Huron–Bruce, and Glengarry–Prescott–Russell. Your comments were both positive and profound.

Many of the members brought forward other statistics in relation to this issue of sexual harassment or harassment in general. It is quite true, as mentioned by other members, that the incidence of sexual harassment seems to be predominately against women. However, other members have identified that it has occurred against males. Also, persons have mentioned that it’s not only the workplace. I too mentioned that. The workplace is not the only place where sexual harassment can occur. There was mention of schools. There was mention of while people are on travel. I mentioned that wherever people may gather, the possibility exists.

I see this morning as more of a discussion in terms of Bill 110 rather than a debate. What we want to do is to ensure that this serious problem is highlighted by proclaiming the first week in June as Sexual Harassment Awareness Week, to bring forward a public awareness and to foster a change in societal attitudes—many persons spoke to that this morning—with an admission that sexual harassment can be prevented before another tragedy occurs, and to also acknowledge that it takes place in our society.

I want to pay particular thanks to the Vince family, whom I’ve known over the past 10 years. They are stalwarts in regard to this issue. They’re a very strong family and they’re working so very hard to ensure that a tragedy such as they suffered through never occurs again here in the province of Ontario. I thank them very much.

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

Interior Designers Act, 2006 loi de 2006 sur les designers d’intérieur

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We’ll deal first with ballot item number 45, standing in the name of Mr. Peterson.

Mr. Peterson has moved second reading of Bill 121. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr. Tim Peterson (Mississauga South): Mr. Speaker, could I ask that this bill be referred to the standing committee on general government?

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

Sexual Harassment Awareness Week Act, 2006 Loi de 2006 sur la semaine de la sensibilisation au harcèlement sexuel

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall now deal with ballot item number 46, standing in the name of Mr. Hoy.

Mr. Hoy has moved second reading of Bill 110. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr. Pat Hoy (Chatham–Kent Essex): I would ask that this bill be referred to the standing committee on justice policy.

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

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

The House recessed from 1200 to 1330.

Annual Report, Office of the Ombudsman

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the 2005-06 annual report of the Ombudsman.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Taxation

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo–Wellington): The member for Halton, our critic for economic development, made an important point in this House yesterday. Drawing attention to the dramatic loss of manufacturing jobs under the watch of the McGuinty Liberal government, he issued a wake-up call that needs to be answered with action, not apathy.

On Tuesday, one of Canada’s most respected independent economic think tanks, the C.D. Howe Institute, issued a damning report of the provincial government’s tax policies. Their policies are costing us jobs. In comparing the total capital tax burden on business, the C.D. Howe Institute found that Ontario’s taxes will soon be the highest not only in Canada, but the highest amongst 36 industrialized economies, excluding the People’s Republic of China.

One of the authors of the report, Jack Mintz, was quoted as saying, “Given Ontario’s size and importance to the Canadian economy, the province’s lack of focus on tax competitiveness is of particular concern.”

Even the chief economist of the TD Bank, Don Drummond, whom the government usually counts on to defend its economic policies, said this in response to the report: “Their whole tax structure on corporations is biased against growth.”

More than a year ago now, I tabled a resolution calling upon the finance committee to develop a plan to create new jobs and protect the ones we already have. Since the start of 2005, we have lost more than 75,000 good manufacturing jobs, including 1,100 jobs at BF Goodrich in Kitchener in Waterloo–Wellington.

The Minister of Finance should acknowledge the serious competitive challenge that Ontario’s manufacturers face—

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

Pride week

Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto–Danforth): Toronto Pride Week is before us again. It’s a time that we celebrate diversity and reflect on the battles that still need to be won for full equality to be realized.

For example, families in my riding are discriminated against because the Vital Statistics Act does not give equal recognition to lesbian mothers. A few weeks ago, Justice Rivard ruled that the Ontario government was infringing on charter rights with this practice and gave it one year to change its ways.

But by enacting legislation that’s already on the books, the McGuinty government can end government discrimination against co-mothers right now. It can proclaim the recently amended

section 9 of the Vital Statistics Act that deals with certification of birth. This revised

section opens the door for a regulation to be written that gives co-mothers due recognition as parents. I’ve filed a motion calling on the McGuinty government to do this.

There is apprehension that this government may try to appeal the Rivard decision, given that it fought the court case tooth and nail. To signify that Pride Week is more than just a photo op to them, the McGuinty government should act on the motion that I’ve put forward.

World Cup

Mr. Mario Sergio (York West): During the month of June 2006, Germany is hosting the World Cup. It’s a world soccer tournament that sees some 32 nations competing for the most coveted trophy in the sport of soccer. The World Cup is held every four years in a different part of the world. Without any doubt, soccer is indeed the greatest sport in the world.

Mr. Bruce Crozier (Essex): No, it isn’t.

Mr. Sergio: Yes, it is. The host nation for the 2006 World Cup, Germany, must be extremely congratulated for putting on a wonderful sporting event.

Canada is not there this year, but I know it’s getting ready to be there four years from now. The game of soccer here in Canada, and especially in our city, is alive and thriving, growing at a record pace. Hundreds of thousands of youngsters belong to one association or another. Thousands of volunteers dedicate themselves to the love of soccer as well.

This Sunday—a first—the Italian women’s soccer team will be playing the Canadian women’s soccer team in Etobicoke at Centennial Stadium, right here in our city, and next year, our city, together with other Canadian cities, will be hosting the World Youth Championship.

So to all of them, to all the sympathizers, to our city, to all the different communities, we are going to be a winner, no matter who is going to win this year’s World Cup. Good luck to all of them.

Premier’s record

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie–Lincoln): Mr. Speaker, what if you were the Premier of Canada’s largest province, and after hiding from the big issues you decided to finally show some leadership? What if, to further that, you organized a summit about the fiscal imbalance? What if nobody stayed past lunch for that conference except a few very well fed Liberal staffers? What if you kept the media waiting for over an hour because you couldn’t get your act together? And what if, once you finally did show up, the media only asked you about the ongoing crisis in Caledonia?

What if the Toronto Star story centred on how, and I quote, a “defensive” Dalton McGuinty has quietly dropped his $23-billion gap slogan because that number isn’t supported by the facts? What if one of your keynote speakers pointedly took issue with the Premier’s $23-billion figure? And what if the Star

article said, “Whatever the real number—and Ontario officials refuse to crunch any new data on the gap—McGuinty really, really, really doesn’t want to talk about it”?

What if CP wrote a story about the fiscal imbalance and mentioned municipalities, the federal government and Stephen Harper, but failed to mention you, your summit or your fight? Well, your name would be Dalton McGuinty.

The reality is that Dalton McGuinty’s weak and indecisive leadership can no longer stay hidden behind expensive taxpayer-funded summits. All those empty chairs spoke volumes that nobody’s falling for that game any more.

Education

Mr. Vic Dhillon (Brampton West–Mississauga): I rise today to speak about the McGuinty government’s accomplishments in the field of education.

We are working hard to ensure that Ontario’s public education system is second to none, and a strong public education system is the foundation of a strong economy. We’re reducing class sizes, boosting test scores, ensuring there’s labour peace in schools and helping more high school students graduate. We have hired more teachers, bought more textbooks, stopped funnelling money to private schools, and made schools safer through an anti-bullying initiative and safe school audits.

But there’s more to be done. We have invested an additional $600 million in education funding, bringing the total to $17.5 billion for 2006-07. That investment is part of our plan to see 75% of 12-year-olds achieve the provincial standard in reading, writing and math, and to see 85% of high school students graduate.

The reason there’s so much to be done is that the previous government treated the education of our children as a wedge issue that could win them votes at election time. They created a crisis so they could score some political points.

Our approach is different. We will continue to work with teachers and parents to make sure our students have the best education possible, which will ensure Ontario’s prosperity for generations to come.

Native land dispute

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): On Tuesday, I visited the beautiful community of Caledonia, and what I heard can best be summed up from a Toronto Sun

article of the other day. I’ll read parts of it.

“Frightened politicians make lousy negotiators—especially when they’re representing us. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty is apparently so freaked out by the native protesters in Caledonia, that he’s now making major concessions to them—with taxpayers’ money—without getting anything in return....

“One of the big concerns the Six Nations negotiators had was that if the disputed land was developed while they were waiting for their case to be heard, it would effectively negate their chances of keeping the land. In other words, it’s reasonable to think a court would be reluctant to order the demolishing of an established subdivision years down the road, even if the natives won their case. The tendency would be to try to compensate the natives with something other than land.

“By agreeing to buy the land and hold it in trust, McGuinty has removed that concern, but apparently got nothing in return—unless there’s now a deal or understanding between the two sides we aren’t being told about.

“The protestors say they’ll continue to occupy the development until they win title to the land. Perhaps, sensing weakness from the province, they’re upping the ante and pushing to get the entire issue settled now, rather than years from now.

“And why not? A few days ago, McGuinty said he wouldn’t continue negotiations with the natives until they took down all their barricades and co-operated with an OPP investigation that led to charges against seven native protestors last weekend.

“Subsequently, the native protestors took down some of the barricades, but not the main one. And as of yesterday, only one of the seven protestors sought by police was in custody.

“And yet, here’s McGuinty not only negotiating but offering a big concession. Someone should tell the Premier that there’s not much point”—

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

Ontario economy

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): A strong economy is vital to the success of our province, as well as meeting the essential needs of all Ontarians. Because of the bold initiatives that the McGuinty government is taking to help build our auto manufacturing sector as well as to stimulate foreign investment and trade, Ontario has been able to experience a resurgence in this key sector. Even John Tory’s good friend and golf buddy, federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, speaks of the resilience of Canadian workers in the June 13 edition of the Globe and Mail: “Canadians are able to find other comparable well paying employment if they lose their job in the manufacturing sector.”

Over the past two years, Ontario’s strategic auto investments have attracted close to $7 billion in new auto sector investments, and we have seen record growth in the past 12 months. Our investments have resulted in the announcement or creation of 7,000 new jobs, plus thousands more spinoffs. Since we took office in October 2003, the Ontario economy has created 290,000 net new jobs, 99% of which are full-time jobs, with an unemployment rate of 5.9%, the lowest in five years.

The McGuinty Liberals are clearly on the side of working Ontarians and understand their needs in the changing economic climate.

Whereas the previous government refused to even consider that it takes more than just tax cuts to build a prosperous economy, we see that there need to be government supports in place to ensure the success of this sector of the economy.

Ultimately, we’re working hard for Ontario’s families, and we’re on their side.

Fair access to professions

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): Our province is enriched every day by the arrival of new Canadians eager to play a role in the beautiful mosaic of Ontario. They bring with them an impressive range of skills. They are eager to contribute to their communities and help the economy thrive. As many as 140,000 newcomers arrive in Ontario each year, and in the past two years more than half of those were university-educated. Within five years, newcomers will account for the entire net labour force growth of the province.

The McGuinty government is committed to making sure that the skills and talents of thousands of internationally trained professionals are a brain gain for Ontario, not a brain drain. This month, we took a huge step towards ensuring this with the introduction of the historic Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act. This proposed legislation, the first of its kind in Canada, will ensure that Ontario’s regulated professions have admissions processes that are fair, transparent and clear. They will also be required to assess credentials more quickly.

In Thorncliffe Park and Flemingdon Park—two vibrant, diverse neighbourhoods in Don Valley West—this is the single most pressing issue. The McGuinty government is on the side of newcomers who choose to make their home in Ontario. David Miller said, “Toronto is home to more new Canadians than any other city in Ontario. They’ve got incredible skills and experience. I’m pleased the Ontario government has taken this major step in helping newcomers put their talents to work in our city and our province.”

I hope the entire House will support this legislation. It’s important for Ontario and it’s important for the newcomers who come here.

Health promotion

Mr. Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): Thanks to the hard work of this government, our province is heading into the summer of 2006 in better health. I couldn’t have been prouder when hundreds of Ontarians joined us on the steps of the Legislature several weeks ago to celebrate the arrival of a smoke-free Ontario.

Despite the noise made by critics of our anti-smoking campaign, the McGuinty government showed great resolve, and our commitment is already reaping results. In restaurants, bars and patios, and other public spaces across the province, people are breathing easier.

With the passage of the LHINs legislation earlier this spring, we made important changes to our health care system, which will bring decision-making, planning and resource allocation back into the community, where it belongs.

The progress doesn’t stop there. By passing the Transparent Drug System for Patients Act this week, we took a bold step toward ensuring that people across our province have greater access to drugs.

There can be no doubt that the McGuinty government is on the side of Ontario families when it comes to health. On behalf of my colleagues here in this Legislature on this side of the House, I’d like to wish the people of our province a happy and healthy summer. On behalf of all of us on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to wish you, the members of the opposition and all Ontarians a happy and safe summer.

Status of Bill 132

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Yesterday, the member for Lanark–Carleton, Mr. Sterling, introduced Bill 132,

An Act to include members of the Legislative Assembly in the public service pension plan and to make related amendments to other Acts. Upon reviewing the bill, I have determined that it would cause an expenditure of public money out of the consolidated revenue fund, contrary to standing order 56. Accordingly, I have directed that the bill not be printed and that it be deleted from the orders and notices paper.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Education Amendment Act (Stability for Students in Transition Housing), 2006 Loi de 2006 modifiant la

Loi sur l’éducation (stabilité pour les étudiants vivant dans un logement de transition)

Ms. Matthews moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 133,

An Act to amend the Education Act to provide stability for students in transition housing / Projet de loi 133, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l’éducation afin d’offrir une stabilité aux étudiants vivant dans un logement de transition.

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

The member may wish to make a brief statement.

Ms. Deborah Matthews (London North Centre): First let me say I’m delighted to be joined today by some people from London who have never lost sight of the importance of kids, especially kids who are at risk. Kate Wiggins, Peter Jaffe, Tim Kelly and a number of others from London are here, and I’m happy they are.

I’m introducing a bill today that gives children the most important thing that they need to succeed in school: stability. This bill recognizes the vital role that schools play in the lives of children while they are in temporary, emergency housing by allowing them to stay at their original school until the end of the school year.

Retail Sales Tax Amendment Act, 2006 Loi de 2006 modifiant la

Loi sur la taxe de vente au détail

Mr. Ouellette moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 134,

An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act / Projet de loi 134, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la taxe de vente au détail.

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

The member may wish to make a brief statement.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): The bill amends the Retail Sales Tax Act to repeal the tax for fuel consumption payable on the purchase of a new vehicle or a sport utility vehicle manufactured in North America and a corresponding tax credit.

This is designed to promote vehicles produced and retailed in Canada and North America. My understanding is that the savings represent up to thousands of dollars per vehicle to the purchaser, which is an incentive for the auto industry.

Also, this is an auto industry-wide recommendation. As for Ontario, it’s one of the only jurisdictions that has this tax disincentive for made-in-North America vehicles.

MOTIONS

Committee sittings

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I know that there’s a request from the opposition benches over there for a 9(c)(i), but I’m afraid I don’t have it with me tonight.

I do have another motion, however. It reads as follows:

I move that the following committees be authorized to meet during the summer adjournment in accordance with the

schedule of meeting dates agreed to by the whips of the recognized parties and tabled with the Clerk of the assembly to examine and inquire into the following matters:

Standing committee on general government to consider Bill 51,

An Act to amend the Planning Act and the Conservation Land Act and to make related amendments to other Acts;

Standing committee on government agencies, pursuant to its terms of reference as set out in standing order 106(e);

Standing committee on social policy to consider Bill 43,

An Act to protect existing and future sources of drinking water and to make complementary and other amendments to other Acts;

Standing committee on justice policy to consider Bill 14,

An Act to promote access to justice by amending or repealing various Acts and by enacting the Legislation Act, 2005, and Bill 107,

An Act to amend the Human Rights Code;

Standing committee on the Legislative Assembly to consider Bill 52,

An Act to amend the Education Act respecting pupil learning to the age of 18 and equivalent learning and to make complementary amendments to the Highway Traffic Act, upon its referral from the House, and for the Chair and up to three members to attend the 2006 annual meeting of the National Conference of State Legislatures;

Standing committee on public accounts to attend the 27th annual conference of the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees; and

Standing committee on estimates to consider 2006-07 estimates of selected ministries and offices.

With the agreement of the whip of each recognized party, the time allotted for consideration by the committees may be amended; and

That the committees be authorized to release their reports during the summer adjournment by depositing a copy of any report with the Clerk of the assembly, and upon the resumption of the meetings of the House, the Chairs of such committees shall bring any such reports before the House in accordance with the standing orders.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Mr. Bradley has moved the following—

Interjection: Dispense.

The Speaker: Dispense? Dispense.

Shall the motion carry? Carried.

Legislative pages

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): I’d like to take this opportunity to express on behalf of all the members of the Legislature a great thanks to this particular group of pages who have served us so well over the past weeks.

Visitors

Ms. Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I’d like to ask members of the Legislature to join me in welcoming a former colleague of mine, Manus McMullan, who’s a barrister with Atkin Chambers in London, England, and his wife, Claire Hughes, from the BBC, who are joining us today.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

Domestic violence

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Statements by the Ministry? The Minister of Education.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Education, minister responsible for women’s issues): And minister responsible for women’s issues.

I am pleased to rise to inform the House of a very important initiative designed to help people recognize the warning signs of woman abuse and to provide people with the tools to help both the woman being abused, at risk of abuse, as well as the abusers. The Neighbours, Friends and Families public education campaign recognizes that every individual in the community has a role to play in helping to prevent abuse against women. Understanding the warning signs is an important first step. Knowing what to do when you see the signs is absolutely critical.

The government is on the side of vulnerable women. We are giving people the information and tools they need in order to know how to help both the abused and the abusers when they suspect a woman is being abused.

Our government put together an expert panel to develop this initiative. I want to acknowledge the work of the expert panel today, some of whom are in the gallery with us, including Dr. Peter Jaffe, academic director at the Centre for Research on Violence Against Women and Children. Thank you, so much, Dr. Jaffe, for being here. He is a true leader in this field.

It gives me great pleasure to introduce to this House today Tim Kelly, who is a real leader in the London area. We’re so pleased he’s here with us. He is the chair of the Neighbours, Friends and Families expert panel. Tim, thank you so much for coming to the House today.

I want to thank all the members of the panel. You can’t imagine how your work will help to change women’s and children’s lives. The work you do is so tremendously important, and we thank each and every one of you for your significant contribution.

I especially want to acknowledge Deb Ashbee, who was with us today at this launch. Deb Ashbee is the best friend of Sandra Schott, who was murdered by her estranged husband. Deb has joined us here in support of this initiative and to make us understand how real the work is that we do. Deb, thank you so much for coming today. It was a real privilege to have you with us at our announcement.

Domestic violence is complex. There are no easy answers. But we must continue to work towards a solution to a problem