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

February 25, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Feb-25 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 25 February 2009 Mercredi 25 février 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FAMILY STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LE DROIT DE LA FAMILLE

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT

(TEMPORARY HELP AGENCIES), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

(AGENCES DE PLACEMENT TEMPORAIRE)

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

RENEWABLE ENERGY AND

ENERGY CONSERVATION

RENEWABLE ENERGY AND

ENERGY CONSERVATION

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

GREEN POWER GENERATION

STUDENT SAFETY

POVERTY

ONTARIO FILM AND

TELEVISION INDUSTRY

SKILLS TRAINING

INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONTROL

MUNICIPALITIES

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

FOREST INDUSTRY

MINERAL EXPLORATION

AND PRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NORTHERN ECONOMY

MOPAR CANADIAN NATIONALS

ARBORISAN WOOD CRAFT

NIAGARA PENINSULA

CHILDREN'S CENTRE

SIEMENS CANADA

LITERACY AND BASIC SKILLS

CRIME STOPPERS AWARDS

TOWNSHIP OF WOOLWICH

RIDINGS OF NORTHUMBERLAND–QUINTE WEST AND PETERBOROUGH

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

POVERTY REDUCTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DE LA PAUVRETÉ

GREENBELT DAY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE JOUR

DE LA CEINTURE DE VERDURE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

POVERTY

BLACK HISTORY MONTH

POVERTY

BLACK HISTORY MONTH

BLACK HISTORY MONTH

POVERTY

BLACK HISTORY MONTH

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE

SALES TAX

SALES TAX

CHILD CARE

SALES TAX

SALES TAX

SALES TAX

SALES TAX

SALES TAX

SALES TAX

SALES TAX

FIREARMS CONTROL

SALES TAX

CHILD CUSTODY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GREEN ENERGY AND GREEN

ECONOMY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR L'ÉNERGIE VERTE

ET L'ÉCONOMIE VERTE

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning. Please remain standing for the Lord's Prayer, followed by a Jewish prayer.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FAMILY STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LE DROIT DE LA FAMILLE

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 23, 2009, on the motion for second reading of Bill 133,

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

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

Mr. John O'Toole: I'm pleased to stand and speak for a few minutes on Bill 133,

An Act to amend various Acts in relation to certain family law matters and to repeal the Domestic Violence Protection Act, 2000.

This bill was introduced in November 2008, and you know, of course, that our position is to make sure it goes for public hearings.

The reason I'm kind of interested in this is that I had the privilege of introducing a bill some time ago that dealt more specifically with domestic violence, and I would hope that this bill, in public hearings, would address some of the provisions that were brought to my attention through some tragic events in my riding.

I also want to pay some respect to our member from Whitby—Oshawa for her leadership on the issue.

Bill 133 is really an omnibus bill that amends eight existing statutes. It amends the Family Law Act, the Children's Law Reform Act, the Pension Benefits Act and the Domestic Violence Protection Act.

Family law includes divorce, separation, custody and access, child protection, adoption and the equitable division of family property. I'm sure that most members here, at least in their offices, are dealing with issues on a daily basis, which is a symptom or evidence of a system that is in peril. The court process is perhaps not the best place to resolve some of these personal matters.

The difficulty with an omnibus bill is the number of details we have to get exactly right. When you're dealing with this number of bills in such a fragile environment, you want to make sure you're looking after what I consider to be the victims: in many cases, women and children, but indeed, families broadly, including grandparents. I would say, with the details here, that I would not want the size and complexity of the bill to detract from the immediate family and child protection measures, such as restraining orders and approving evidence in custody hearings. I would encourage full consultation with the legal community and also with individuals, families and all stakeholders.

Ontario's first child protection act was introduced in 1888, more than 120 years ago. The ongoing need to adapt child protection to meet the needs of today must guard against delays, because lives could be at risk. In fact, it's an important time to respect, or at least recognize, the work done by the Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth.

This text was released to members yesterday by the child advocate, and he said in his report quite a few things that I feel were—in fact, it's in the media today. He talks about 90 Deaths, Ninety Voices Silenced. That's the kind of attention and sensitivity we need to focus on when dealing with this very sensitive issue. I would refer viewers and other members to look at this report from the Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth.

In fact, there are many sad stories, which lead to my comments this morning, so that I can be on the record as standing up for protecting and criticizing any form of violence at any level by any individual. It just isn't acceptable, nor was it ever; it's just that we are more educated today about strategies to deal with it.

The need for urgency: Ontarians were shocked and saddened to learn early this week that 90 children known to child protection services died in 2007. That's the report I referred to. The child advocate says that a 2008 coroner's report suggests that most of these deaths were preventable. Equally shocking was the death of seven-year-old Katelynn Sampson in August 2008. As members will recall, her guardian was granted full and final custody of the young child earlier in the year, despite having a criminal conviction.

Current bills before the House: Bill 130, the Children's Safety and Protection Rights Act, 2008, was introduced by the member from Nepean—Carleton, expanding Christopher's Law—the sex offender registry—to include child abuse, and expanding the role of the Ombudsman, the Children's Aid Society and school boards or hospitals. It's like anything. My wife has since retired as a teacher, but they're required to notify officials when they suspect abuse.

That's the state we should be in: not to be intrusive, but when there's clear evidence, I think they should have a duty, whether it's a doctor or educator or whoever, to report that. Expanding the role of the Provincial Auditor and the advocate for children and youth is really what I'm advocating here, and amendments to allow the advocate to provide advocacy to students in schools and children in hospitals.

Children are the most vulnerable members of our society, and we collectively, without any partisan politics, should be standing up to protect them. Bill 128, the sex offender registry introduced by the member from Cambridge, is another example. The bill I introduced some time ago was Bill 10,

An Act, in memory of Lori Dupont, to better protect victims of domestic violence. I introduced this bill December 5, 2007, and it went to second reading on May 5 and was referred to the Standing Committee on Social Policy. It was based on provisions in Bill 117, passed in 2000, although they were never enacted. I want to repeat: That bill was unanimously passed here in the year 2000 and, under this government, was never enacted. Perhaps there are justifiable reasons. I don't know; I have inquired. That's why I reintroduced the Lori Dupont act, to bring the effects of the bill into law.

On November 12, 2005, Lori Dupont, a nurse and mother, was killed by a man who had been her partner. This happened despite her efforts to obtain a peace bond to keep him away. In another case, Jennifer Copithorn was tragically killed in August 1998 by an estranged lover, partner, whatever. This one here was tragic because it really brought it home to me and, I'm sure, to our entire community in Bowmanville. This happened right across the road from my constituency office in Bowmanville. It was a very tragic, savage and unnecessary death.

Jennifer was a young woman who worked at the bank across from my constituency office and she was stabbed repeatedly to death. Her former boyfriend was charged with first-degree murder.

Over a five-year period, an estimated 1.2 million Canadians are victims of domestic abuse. Domestic violence is not just a crime against the person abused. It deeply affects the children who witness the violence and the destabilization of families. That family extends across from in-laws to other relatives in the family and associates of the young children. It's just a tragic and unnecessary perpetration of anger and I just don't understand it. Domestic violence is a crime against the very foundation of an orderly and nurturing society. We all talk about families as being the basic unit of society.

Now is the time to stand up, without partisan rhetoric, to implement the mechanisms for police and others to be able to act to protect people whose lives should not have been lost.

I do want to pay respect to people who helped in the drafting of Bill 10, the Lori Dupont Act. I looked at the history of the bill. Paul Hong is a young lawyer who was interested in this. Paul worked along with my son, Erin, who is also a lawyer. They did it on my behalf and on behalf of young men to show that they are very concerned as well.

I think education, even talking about this issue, is important, to say that we have responsibilities. It's not to paint all men as perpetrators of violence. I think that's false. It's a false argument. In fact, it's not the message. It's violence that we're trying to respond to here. It is not acceptable.

In some age groups or gender groups there are some predictors but I think, quite honestly, we've got to treat it fairly, because what I see under separation and the court order issue of support payments is huge. It is a huge deal, especially in this economy. Say someone was a stockbroker and the stockbroker was making a lot of money back then. A court order could be awarded for maybe $5,000 a month in support or more, and now they're unemployed and going deeper into debt. All the debt is going to drive them crazy.

I'm not justifying it. It could be either partner. It's the way of resolving disputes and keeping in focus that we don't want people to go over the deep edge. I'm speaking in a broad sense. I respect Fern in my office, who does most of the work on the family law business. She's very good.

Bill 133 seeks to protect or prosecute breaches of restraining orders under the Criminal Code. What Bill 10, the Lori Dupont Act, did is it allowed access to a restraining order seven days a week, 24 hours a day. The courts determined that Lori Dupont was actually murdered while she was waiting for a restraining order to be issued. What we're saying is they should be accessible seven days a week, 24 hours a day.

I'm surprised that the court, whether it's the justices of the peace or the judges themselves in Family Court, wouldn't be supportive of the Lori Dupont Act. I would like to hear from them. Although we don't, and should not, have any direct intervention or interference with the courts, this august chamber here is responsible for setting the statutes and the laws. I think we can exercise our voice and we should.

This would allow for tougher enforcement and stricter bail conditions. Restraining order eligibility would be expanded to those living together in a relationship for fewer than three years. However, in Bill 133, I do not see the 24-hour-a-day, seven-days-a-week access to emergency intervention orders that was part of the private member's bill and originated in Bill 117. I'm really trying to say this is a very small amendment that could be implemented in this omnibus bill, Bill 133, and would allow for these restraining orders to be issued 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

I urge members to consider the amendment and provide for emergency intervention orders. That's really all I'm calling for; it is not a huge deal. It's really going to save lives. We're seeing that with the Advocate for Children and Youth, and we've seen it in evidence I've cited here—two cases specifically. If you follow the media, I'm sure you will find them in many, many locations.

In my view, adding round-the-clock access to protection that is legally binding would strengthen the bill. I would urge members to find ways to make this bill stronger where protection of our children and families is concerned. Please consider the ideas that have been put forward in private members' legislation I have briefly mentioned—and I take no single credit; this is an action of the whole House and a sentiment that is shared, I would say, by all members. Not one of us has a monopoly on insight or ideas: not the government and not the opposition or the third party.

I think that if we worked collegially and collectively on issues that affect families and society's civility, we ourselves would be respected in the Legislature. As it is, we tend to get into name-calling and other degenerated activities that maybe aren't very helpful. By working together, we can ensure that the most effective child and family protection legislation is enacted.

We also need a full public consultation. I think the direction I have been hearing from the ministry is that there will be public hearings. That is where the real stories can be told and be permanently on the record to improve the civility of society by all of us. This could apply to children who are learning things from adults who aren't acting properly themselves.

I would ask officially for full public hearings at this point, and in responses I expect the minister would take it upon them to have full hearings on this omnibus bill which affects all the acts I have mentioned—in the time I have, maybe I will mention a few of them. We can prevent family violence by setting the right tone and the right process.

Even further, I'd be happy to seek other ways of mediation outside the very expensive, litigation-bound process we have today. What I find, without being cruel to anyone—as I say, I have members of my family who are lawyers, litigators—is that when you have a combative separation or divorce, a lot of money is spent in legal fees and the children may not have winter clothes. It's tragic. They end up with nothing. It really is sad.

If we don't go to public hearings and hear from people who practise family law—many of them are saddened themselves at applications to court, pretrial hearings, all these things that take money. We have an opportunity in Bill 133 to make the lives of children and families better, and I would urge you to do that.

In the interest of using all the time I have been allocated, I'm just going to go over a bit of Bill 133 for members here.

Hon. James J. Bradley: You're actually going to speak to the bill?

Mr. John O'Toole: Well, I have. I think I've done an extremely thorough job and prepared notes.

Quite frankly, the

part I like here is: "The Act is consequentially amended to account for amendments made by the Bill to the Children's Law Reform Act, permitting a court to change a child's surname where a declaration of maternity or paternity is made. Specifically,

section 5 of the Change of Name Act is amended to add a requirement that, where the court has made such an order changing a child's surname, an application under the Act to further change the child's surname requires the consent of the person declared by the court to be the mother or father of the child. As with the other consents required to be obtained by the Act in the circumstances, the requirement may be waived by a court on application."

That's one of the kind of nitty-gritty parts when there is a divorce: One of the spouses wants to change the child's surname. Some of the things that are in the bill can be pretty acrimonious.

The bill also makes amendments to the French version of the Child and Family Services Act.

"The bill makes consequential amendments to

section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act to update the provisions permitting the court to, while making a custody order, make a restraining order without requiring a separate application, and deeming the restraining order to be a restraining order made under the Children's Law Reform Act."

So they do mention the restraining order. The only small provision I'm looking for is to have it accessible seven days a week, 24 hours a day. That's how you save lives. When these things break out, you can't just run over to the court at 11 o'clock at night when somebody's acting out and ask for a restraining order. It's just not available. You'd have to make application for it and then file.

"The Children's Law Reform Act is amended by adding

section 6.1, which permits a court to change a child's surname"—I mentioned that.

"In addition, three new provisions are added to create new requirements in cases where a person who is not the parent of a child applies for custody of the child." This comes back to another bill which the government has disallowed: grandparents who have taken custody of children from a family dispute where they no longer get that supplemental pay of about $124 a month. That's simply wrong. Grandparents today, with all the chaos in family breakdowns, are often ending up as the caregivers and the support for the child. I think that support should be there.

I'm a grandparent, we have five grandchildren, and I would hope and pray that our five children and their spouses—they're not all married; two of them aren't married, but three are married—stay together for many, many years—happily, I hope—and their children, our grandchildren, are protected and safe. That's where I'm coming from on this bill. I would ask other members to give due consideration, and I look forward to public hearings.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

M me France Gélinas: Il me fait plaisir de donner des commentaires suite au député de Durham face au projet de loi 133, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne des questions de droit de la famille et abrogeant la Loi de 2000 sur la protection contre la violence familiale.

Nous sommes, bien entendu, en accord avec la création d'un projet de loi qui protège les femmes et qui protège les enfants—le parti néo-démocratique est là pour défendre les familles, ce qui inclut les femmes et les enfants—et un projet de loi qui essaie de diminuer les coûts et le stress associés avec les processus de la Cour de la famille.

Il faut se rappeler que ce projet de loi fait suite à la mort de Katelynn Sampson, une petite fillette de sept ans qui a été tuée par ceux que la cour avait désignés pour la protéger. On a par la suite appris que sa gardienne, qui avait été désignée par la cour, avait un dossier judiciaire.

Nous sommes en accord avec le membre de Durham que le projet de loi ne va pas assez loin. Le projet de loi en lui-même est un pas dans la bonne direction, mais il faut regarder aux causes qui ont mené à ce type de problème : dans un premier temps, le sous-financement, qu'on parle de sous-financement des juges, d'accès à la juridique ou même d'accès aux services sociaux qui font que les enfants et les femmes se retrouvent dans une position de vulnérabilité où ils ont besoin d'être protégés par la cour.

On parle également des recommandations qui ont été faites suite au meurtre de M me Lori Dupont. Pourquoi est-ce que ce genre de recommandation-là, qui pourrait avoir un effet majeur pour protéger les femmes, reste sur les tablettes ? Les recommandations ne sont pas mises de l'avant.

Donc, nous appuyons certains des commentaires qui ont été faits par le membre de Durham et nous voulons voir ce projet de loi aller en comité.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Paul Miller: I'd like to commend the member from Durham for bringing this forward. This is a very delicate situation in family law. The victims are the children and the parents if it's not a good breakup.

But what I don't see in the bill and would like to see more of is counselling for the person—for whatever reason one person leaves and the children and the father may be distressed or the mother may be distressed over the breakup and they may not be acting in a normal situation because of their duress—that there be more counselling for these situations from social services so that they can get them right off the bat, so that the emotional stress does not come to a point where it becomes violent.

They can talk to them and settle them down and maybe do some rebuilding that may even put these families back together, for whatever reason.

Especially in this time when there's economic strife in our communities, because of the job losses and that, these things escalate. So the ability for the court to immediately act in a restraining order is good because a lot of things happen within the first week of a breakup which wouldn't normally happen when somebody sits down and thinks about what they're doing or their actions. I think this type of legislation will be beneficial to the protection of mothers, fathers, whatever the situation may be, and the children. I think it's long overdue.

Once again, I'd like to reiterate that I'd like to see more help for the one that's left behind, whether it be the father or the mother, to deal with the emotional breakdown of their life. I think that would be an important part of this.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Member for Durham, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. John O'Toole: I'd also like to thank the member from Nickel Belt, who, along with the member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, did mention the tragedy that I believe all the speakers when this was last debated—I'm checking the Hansard record here. I would think there were a number of speakers—I know Mr. Kormos spoke as well as the members from Nickel Belt and Hamilton East. They all sort of referred to the tragedy that we all talk about as being a point where we can identify why we're emotionally connected to this, a young child being murdered. A lot of it comes back to this restraining order, for all people who feel threatened by violence. That's really what we're trying to say.

First, we agree with the intent of the bill. We want public hearings across the province, especially in areas—probably remote areas. Can you think of someone living in a remote area who has no protection except that the courts can intervene? Maybe police can't be there quick enough. There needs to be some certainty around the strengthening of these intervention orders seven days a week, 24 hours a day.

When we're looking at this situation, I want to say on the record that Christine Elliott, the member from Whitby—Oshawa, is a lawyer. I believe she's practised in this area of law. She's very committed. I read her comments in the Hansard. I want to commend her for her advocacy for vulnerable people generally.

I look forward to this legislation going to committee, as has been suggested.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate?

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

Second reading agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Interjection: No.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I didn't hear anybody say "no" from their seat.

Interjection: No.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): To which committee shall it be referred?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I would ask that the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Social Policy.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Agreed?

Mr. John O'Toole: I would suggest that the bill might be better sent to the justice committee, as it is a justice bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The minister has the right to designate the committee. So the bill shall be referred to the Standing Committee on Social Policy?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): So referred.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT

(TEMPORARY HELP AGENCIES), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

(AGENCES DE PLACEMENT TEMPORAIRE)

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 24, 2009, on motion for second reading of Bill 139,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 in relation to temporary help agencies and certain other matters / Projet de loi 139, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2000 sur les normes d'emploi en ce qui concerne les agences de placement temporaire et certaines autres questions.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate?

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak on Bill 139,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act 2000, in relation to temporary help agencies and certain other matters. In simpler terms, this legislation, this proposed Bill 139, deals with regulating temporary agencies that hire individuals and assign them to a client site, and I will talk a little bit more about that further in my comments.

Before I do that, I want to make a couple of observations. I have often in this House spoken about the need to create sensible legislation, legislation that strikes the right balance: balance between the rights of the workers or employees and balance ensuring that we don't stifle entrepreneurship, that we give our businesses, our employers, the tools necessary to ensure that they run profitable, good, healthy businesses and employ more people in our community and in our economy. I believe that this particular legislation, Bill 139, strikes that right balance.

It really, on one hand, upholds and further protects the rights of the workers, those temporary workers who use temporary agencies to get employment, and also the rights of the employers to make sure that they can rely on that type of temporary employee to conduct their business in a proper manner and be able to further contribute to our economy.

That type of balance is extremely necessary, especially for us as legislators, as policy-makers, when we are debating this type of legislation, to ensure that we have that right element in the legislation. In that regard, I want to congratulate the Minister of Labour, Peter Fonseca, for proposing Bill 139, and I also want to congratulate his parliamentary assistant, Vic Dhillon, for the work he has done to ensure that we have this bill in front of us for debate.

I have heard about this issue quite a few times in my riding of Ottawa Centre. Since I was elected a year and a half or so ago, this issue has been brought up to me: For employees who go through temp agencies, what are their rights? What kind of benefits do they receive? There are a few groups who have brought that issue to me, but I'm going to focus on one group who has often spoken to me about this particular issue. Those are immigrants in our community, or new Canadians, as we may refer to them, those who recently arrived in Canada, in Ontario, to build a new life.

They have often spoken to me about the need to have more safeguards in place to ensure that those individuals in our society who get jobs through temp agencies have their rights protected.

We are a country of immigrants, as you know, Mr. Speaker. We've built this country along with First Nations, the aboriginal communities, over many, many years to be a very prosperous society. We welcome people almost every day who come to Canada, who come to Ontario—my family included, almost 20 years ago. The majority of the people who come to Ontario are here in search of a better life.

They are here to make sure that they are more prosperous than where they lived before, that their children receive good education and have those opportunities to succeed, so that they have equal rights, which is something extremely important to cherish—to prosper right here in Ontario, right here in Canada. So they, in essence, are economic immigrants. They are not really here for political reasons. Some are, but most of the people who come to Ontario are economic immigrants. They're here to build a better life.

It is important for us to ensure that, as newcomers to our society, their rights are well known to them and are protected.

A lot of the new immigrants who come in are building a new life. They're starting out. It's akin to learning how to walk again. You're living in a new country, a new culture, a new society, a new climate, and you need to deal with that. You also need to build your economic life: to find a job; to fit into the profession, if you're a doctor, a lawyer, an engineer, and go through the whole accreditation process to make sure that you can practise in your respective profession.

Most of the immigrants, when they come in initially, so they can start sustaining themselves, so they can start paying their bills, so they can start making sure that their kids are going to school, engage in temporary employment because they've got to start living right away. They have to make sure. Those realities are very important. Not many people come to Canada with a lot of savings, so they have to integrate into the workforce right away. One recourse they have is temporary agencies, so they can find temporary employment.

As they are adjusting well into their new community, as they are going back to university or college to get their new diplomas or degrees, as they are going through the process of getting their professional credentials recognized, they need to make sure that they are paying their bills.

Today, we don't have many rights for those employees who work through temp agencies, which this bill, Bill 139, is trying to rectify. Those individuals who are working through these temp agencies are finding that they are really not taking that much of their salary home, that they are paying most of their salary through various fees, that there are barriers to them getting into permanent jobs while they are in these temporary positions etc.—and in a moment, we'll go through some of the elements of this legislation.

It really creates a significant impediment for new Canadians as they are working very hard to integrate in the economic fabric of Ontario, and this legislation really goes to the heart of that.

I do want to acknowledge a lot of good work that is already being done in our cities, in our towns, in our villages, to help new Canadians better integrate, both socially and economically, in our communities. I know in Ottawa Centre, in my riding, there are a lot of great organizations that are working with newcomers to ensure that they have all the tools necessary.

I want to take the opportunity to mention Carl Nicholson at the Catholic Immigration Centre, Lucya Spencer at the Ottawa immigrant women's organization, Hamdi Mohamed at the Ottawa Community Immigrant Services Organization, and Mengistab Tsegaye at LASI World Skills—great individuals, fantastic organizations, and they're working hard.

I want to congratulate their staff, their boards and their volunteers for the tremendous work that they are doing in Ottawa alone and in my riding so that those who are making Ottawa their home are getting the right supports, are given the necessary tools, to build a better and more prosperous life in the city of Ottawa.

This government has taken many other steps to ensure that immigrants have the right tools to integrate in their communities. The Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act, 2006, is another important example by which we are collectively working to ensure that we make it easier, more fair and equitable, so those individuals who have foreign credentials are recognized in a manner that is more effective right here in Ontario. There is a lot of work, no doubt, that needs to be done on that front, but I'm very happy that this government, in 2006, brought in the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act and passed it.

Through this legislation, the Honourable Jean Augustine is the first Fairness Commissioner, who is overseeing the work that is being undertaken. But we need to continue working on that front, because all these pieces together will ensure that immigrants who come to Ontario have the right tools necessary to succeed. When they succeed, we all collectively prosper: as a community, as a society. So it is in our best interests to make sure that those who are coming and making Ontario their home every single day have the right, necessary tools.

Let me talk about this legislation, Bill 139, and what it's trying to accomplish. What does it do? Again, I repeat that it's very important to remember that it really strikes the right balance between the rights of the employees and ensures that our businesses are running successfully.

First of all, I think at the most fundamental level what this legislation is trying to do is bring the whole mechanism that works through temp agencies—that is, the employment opportunities that are provided through temp agencies—under the fold and scope of the Employment Standards Act, 2000. For those who are watching these proceedings who don't know what the Employment Standards Act does, essentially the Employment Standards Act enshrines the rights of the employees and the obligations of the employers.

In our daily lives, as we have various jobs in our communities, we are protected pretty much through the Employment Standards Act. So the number of hours you work, how much time you should get in terms of lunch break, statutory holidays or public holidays, how many and what days—all these things are within the scope and ambit of the Employment Standards Act. So essentially what we are doing through Bill 139 is that if you are hired through a temp agency and you've been assigned to a client, as they refer to a third party, to provide your services, you are also protected through the Employment Standards Act.

That is what Bill 139 is trying to do and that's a big step, to ensure that the rights of those employees who are hired through temp agencies are protected through the Employment Standards Act.

There are four, I believe—in my reading through the act—factors which are extremely important or rights which are enshrined in this legislation which are worth discussing. The very first aspect is fees that are charged by temp agencies of the temporary employees. At the moment, in some circumstances and through some temp agencies, there are enormous amounts of fees which are being charged. So when an employee goes through this agency, not only is the temp agency charging the client, where they are placing the individual, but they are also charging the employee, I've heard, up to 30% or 35% of their salary.

Of course that creates a huge, tremendous, onerous limitation on the individual, who is working very hard and then forgoing that much of their salary to the temp agency. Bill 139 would prohibit agencies from charging a fee to a person for becoming an assignment employee or a temporary employee, charging a fee for assistance in finding or attempting to find work with a client and charging assignment employees or prospective employees a fee for assistance in preparing a resume or for job interviews. This is a great direction.

However, agencies, of course, will be free to receive fees from clients because it's a business and they have to earn a profit as well. If a client comes to a temp agency, "I'm looking to hire a person to do some computer programming" and this temp agency finds an individual who meets the qualifications, then that client who requested them to find somebody is the one who will be paying a fee, not the employee who has been assigned to do the work. That employee, then, can take all the money they make, everything they're earning from that particular position, to their home, to their families and, as a consumer, spend it back into our economy—an important aspect.

The second element that's very important is the issue of reprisals. In many instances, we know that if the relationship goes sour or if the person leaves—a person is looking for a permanent job at the same location—that there are circumstances where there are reprisals. There are some significant prohibitions and enforcement measures in Bill 139 to ensure that reprisals don't take place.

Just to give you an example, Bill 139 would prohibit the clients of agencies from engaging in reprisals against assignment employees for asserting their rights. Currently, if a temp agency employee is on an assignment and finds his or her rights are being abused—for example, being forced to work excess hours—and if that employee complains to the client, he or she could be labelled a troublemaker and told not to come back. Even though the client company has reprised against the employee, that individual has no remedy currently against the client company under the current Employment Standards Act rules.

Bill 139 would prohibit this kind of reprisal, a very important element in order to ensure that the rights of those employees who work in temp agencies are fully protected.

There are very important information provisions as well in this bill. Agencies will be required to provide certain information to the assignment employees in writing, such as the client's name and contact information when offering a work assignment, wages, benefits, hours of work, the pay

schedule associated with the assignment and a general description of the work to be performed for the client.

On the surface, this sounds very basic, as to, "Oh, why would you need this?" or "Of course that should be done." We have seen and heard of circumstances in our communities where people have been given an impression that they would be working at a certain location for certain hours, but in reality the job is totally different, the work hours are far in excess of what the person is getting paid, and there's no accountability. There is no legal enforcement against that.

What this particular provision around information is trying to do is to rectify the situation where there is an obligation on behalf of temp agencies to provide certain information to the potential employee so that the person can make a decision on whether to take the job or not based on proper information; there is full transparency associated with it.

Lastly, there are provisions dealing with undermining and eliminating barriers to permanent employment, because one of the things we want to see is that if a person gets a temporary position and if it can become permanent, that it takes place.

So Bill 139 will prohibit preventing a client from hiring an agency's assignment employee, charging the client a temporary-to-permanent fee after six months or more have passed since the employee was first assigned to the client, restricting clients from providing references to an assignment employee, preventing an assignment employee from taking permanent employment with a client of the agency and charging the employee a fee if the employee should find permanent employment with that client.

These are very important provisions to ensure that the rights of the employees who get a position through temp agencies are fully met.

I see that my time is running out. I think what I would like to say in conclusion is that this legislation very much works hand in hand with this government's poverty reduction strategy to ensure that members in our community, our families, working families, have the right opportunities to succeed. Making sure that we enshrine the rights of those employees who get jobs through temp agencies is extremely important.

Yesterday, I mentioned the Payday Loans Act, which was passed last year through this Legislature. It's another important step to make sure that the rights of those individuals and working families in our communities are protected, that they have the safeguards on their side to ensure that they're not being taken advantage of and they have the means to take their hard-earned incomes home so they can spend it on themselves and their families and put themselves first.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak on Bill 139.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O'Toole: I listened carefully to the comments made by the member from Ottawa Centre. For the most part, I would say, having worked in personnel and labour relations for a number of years with General Motors—in better days of General Motors, I might say. My point is this: I think almost everyone here would agree that on compliance with the existing Employment Standards Act, we're onside. I think, more importantly, it's important to put on the record that the main debate today is about the status of the temporary worker.

This is someone—it may be a young person, a person re-entering the workforce, a person wanting to work part-time, different kinds of things to maybe augment the family income; but most important here, we should keep the focus on this: It's about a job. First, it's about a job.

What do we have in Ontario? We have a slightly contracted labour force—about 300,000 people without a job. Don't lose sight of the state of the economy and talk about these small fragments of important economic issues. That being said, if you read the sections carefully, there are a few sections that should cause you some concern. I'm referring to

section 74.2 of the act that it's amending. It says: "... the part" of the act "does not apply to certain kinds of work assignments made under certain contracts with community care access corporations." Wait a minute here. What are the exclusions, if it's good for all and you are making great trumpeting sounds about the fairness of it all? It is not consistent.

It's my understanding as well that certain agencies—let's look at the health care debate. When they know that there's an outbreak of SARS or whatever, they need to man up quickly for a period of time until they deal with this emergency issue, and then they go back to their normal employment levels. I'm not certain that this bill is clear enough on what it's trying to achieve, so I'm looking forward to public hearings on this bill, because it's poorly drafted.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Nickel Belt.

M me France Gélinas: I want to talk about some of the comments that were made, basically about the issues facing temporary agency workers. One would tend to believe that they can all be put into the same basket and treated the same way, when this is not the case at all. The issues addressed in this bill represent only some of the issues facing temporary agency workers and peripheral workers more generally, but it certainly doesn't cover it all. In reality, we need to get at the fundamental changes in peripheral workers in today's market. There are broader issues that have to do with fundamental rethinking of the Employment Standards Act.

In Sudbury, up to a few months ago, mining was booming. They couldn't hire people fast enough and they certainly relied on temporary agency workers to come and fill the need, the intention being that they were not able to recruit and give full-time employment, so they used agencies to help in the short term. But here again, even in those circumstances, the Employment Standards Act failed those people. It failed them in terms of WSIB coverage. Might I remind you that mining is still a very high-risk occupation in this province. Once you deal with a temporary agency and you're considered an independent contractor, you are not covered.

So there are all kinds of issues that need to be added on to this bill if we want it to achieve the goal that it set out to do. We, too, are looking forward to seeing this bill in committee so that it can be modified to do what it set out to do.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I want to thank my colleague the member from Ottawa Centre for his eloquent speech detailing the important elements of this bill. I think he said it right. This bill is an important step toward reforming temporary agencies in the province of Ontario, which play a pivotal role in our community, but sadly, there was no regulation in this element of our economic structure.

I think it's important to regulate them and make sure all the people who are working through those temporary agencies are well protected, especially, as you mentioned, the newcomers who do not understand the rules and regulations of this province, who are looking badly for jobs and do whatever is possible to feed their families. I think that it's our obligation, our duty, to protect everyone, especially the vulnerable among us who are looking for jobs.

So I want to congratulate my colleague for telling this House and the people of Ontario about the important elements of every step and why we introduced this bill and why it's important for all of the people of Ontario that this bill pass and become law in the province of Ontario to govern those temporary agencies.

Also, and I heard many different people speaking before us today and the other day, it's not against the temporary agencies. It's not against anyone. I know some of them do a good job trying to find jobs for many people across the province of Ontario. But it's important to make some rules and regulations to make sure all those temporary agencies are working according to the rules and laws. Many people, especially the workers, sometimes pay the price because some of those temporary agencies are fly-by-night agencies and they don't pay the workers. That's why it's important to regulate this industry.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Member for Ottawa Centre, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I want to thank my colleagues from Durham, Nickel Belt and London—Fanshawe for their insightful comments in response to my comments on Bill 139.

I want to reiterate that this legislation is important to ensure that, for those individuals who are working through temp agencies, those individuals who are working very hard—and as I was alluding earlier, a lot of them happen to be newcomers to Canada—to build their lives, to integrate into this new society, into this new province, this country which they are calling their home now, those workers' rights are protected under the Employment Standards Act. Bill 139 is doing exactly that.

It's making sure that temp workers, or assignment workers, as they are referred to in Bill 139, are recognized in the legislation, that they are protected by the obligations and the rights that are outlined in the Employment Standards Act so that they are full participants in our economy.

I think it's even more important today, given that we're going through some tough economic challenges not just in Ontario, not just in Canada, but across the globe, if you look at some of the Asian countries which are suffering far more than we are in Canada—and we are fortunate for that—that we create measures and we have safeguards like that so we encourage employees to be full participants in the workforce so that their rights are protected. We need all of us at our best to ensure that we contribute to the economy.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate?

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 139,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000, in relation to temporary help agencies and certain other matters.

I'm disappointed that we're here in this Legislature once again debating another regulatory bill when hard-working Ontarians are losing jobs by the thousands. As a result of this bill, if it passes the way it has been written, there will be more unemployment. Ontarians are looking to their government for some help. You can't call a late budget help, or the fact that we were fiscally in a full-blown recession—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Member for Burlington, you may be disappointed, but we are discussing Bill 139 and I would appreciate if all members would keep that in mind in their debate.

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like the minister to tell me why he is creating make-work projects when we have much more urgent business to attend to. Deflecting from that business with this bill does not serve us well in this Legislature.

Taking up valuable debating time when we are struggling is not appropriate. This is yet another bill and another example of a good idea not being followed through appropriately. It does not identify the hardships that will ensue for firms that are scrupulous and for their employees. I understand that there are some firms that take advantage of employees, but the legislation should target those companies and those companies only.

Did Minister Fonseca say, "Mr. McGuinty, I know that the economy is weak and that we don't have a plan to make it better, but what I'd like to do is make it harder for the businesses who are out there finding employment for transitional and temporary labourers to operate"? What planet are we on here?

This is yet another bill that is taking time in this House when we need to focus on other business. The private sector is the only sector that will suffer from this bill, because those contracted by government agencies will not be affected by this bill. Why is that? That creates a very unlevel playing field. I've amassed a great deal of experience in how some of these regulations are rammed through without much public consultation. The honest truth is, we are hurting the very businesses who are picking up the slack for this government's inaction.

A constituent of mine who provides non-medical in-home care to seniors and others in need of daily assistance shared their concerns with me over the impact that Bill 139 would have on their clients and their business. Their business is thinly margined. The proposed changes will add costs and ultimately drive up the cost of their services for their seniors who can ill afford that increase right now. Many of their home care workers want the flexibility of casual labour. As employers, they need to tailor work schedules based on clients' needs. This should not trigger termination.

There are parts of the bill that are clearly aimed at preventing abuse from unscrupulous employers and they wholeheartedly support those, as I do, as it works to improve those situations.

My colleague from Thornhill's stakeholders have shared these objections to Bill 139:

"Our primary concern is the removal of the 'elect to work status' and how it will effect notice of termination.

"This cost burden will make it impossible for clients to continue to use agencies which they have come to depend on to remain competitive in a global economy. The use of temporary workers helps them manage peak periods and fluctuations." This bill wipes all that out.

"This will remove the flexibility that many organizations have come to require in this global economy with goods arriving from various ports.

"Many of these organizations will leave this province if that flexibility is lost and move to a more business-friendly environment. With what is occurring in the US, they will continue to receive an even greater incentive to do so.

"Numerous large organizations have temporary workers as part of their business plan, including many with unionized environments.

"Those organizations that do not move will ultimately be forced to consistently turn over its workforce in an effort to minimize such impact.

"This will force all parties to immediately turn over the staff prior to three months of employment to avoid the issue altogether.

"How can such a policy truly benefit a worker that is trying to develop the skills to gain better full-time employment, when they are displaced every 10 weeks?

"Please remember that many of these workers are new Canadians with good work ethic and skills, but lacking the communication skills clients would require for them." They try to take temporary employment while they gain the communication skills in order to obtain full-time employment.

"Working temporary assignments as a starting point provides them with an opportunity to contribute, pay taxes and feel proud of themselves.

"Statutory holiday pay" is "becoming mandatory effective January 2, 2009. Our agency has paid statutory holiday pay to a percentage of our workforce based on attendance, longevity etc. so we will be able to digest such a notion," says this company.

"However, the cumulative effect of this with the other proposed changes will be economically devastating to our industry and our clients.

"Overall it is the timing of such a mandate that is disturbing. Our province is facing a financial crisis"—just as it is in the US and globally.

"Many areas are constructively working with business to increase cash flow and employment opportunities. Ultimately such a mandate increases the cost of our client organizations at a time when even the largest, most stable organizations are struggling to survive.

"Such policies will have a negative impact on our clients, ourselves and ironically the workers that such a bill was trying to protect.

"These workers will be easily replaced in such a market, and given no chance for longer assignments unless they are truly extraordinary yet will have a negative impact on morale and overall efficiencies."

Sad tale to tell.

The Association of Canadian Search, Employment and Staffing Services, more commonly known as ACSESS, says:

"There are three technical shortcomings within the bill which require improvement, otherwise these areas will cause an overall failure to achieve the stated objectives.

"These shortcomings unintentionally create an overly complex set of rules that are administratively unmanageable for any employer and may be impossible to monitor and enforce.

"These shortcomings will also unintentionally cost thousands of jobs and cause significant hardship for the people the bill was specifically designed to protect."

In the continuance of employment while not working category, ACSESS is very concerned with subsection 74.4(2) because it creates an implied continuance of employment while not on assignment, which in turn constructs an inconsistency between the employer's obligations and the reality of the employment context. This is inconsistent with every other jurisdiction within not only Canada, but North America. The legislation fails to appreciate the nature of temporary employment and the staffing services industry.

It creates a different and higher standard for staffing company employers and creates a higher cost of burdens and liabilities for temporary staffing companies compared to all other employers within every other industry. ACSESS is very concerned that this proposed amendment will result in a significant reduction in the number of short-term employees being hired and will result in higher unemployment in the province of Ontario.

This provision will cause the greatest harm to the thousands of employees who choose—because there are people who choose—temporary employment and benefit significantly from the flexibility and training that is provided. Moreover, it imposes a higher legislative standard on staffing industry employers and contrasts existing provisions of the Ontario ESA.

There are recommendations for the continuance of employment while not working. They suggest that we don't codify a continuance of employment and recognize and respect periods of active versus inactive employment. There is no employment when the assignment employee is inactive—that means not on assignment. So they're suggesting we delete clause (b). Do not impose a different and higher legislative standard on staffing firm employers.

ACSESS is also very concerned with the proposed amendments in the area of notice of termination and severance. The amendments set up a general rule that an assignment employee will be deemed to be terminated and severed if he or she is not assigned work for a period of 35 consecutive weeks, subject to some exceptions. The amendments also set out detailed rules respecting how to calculate termination and severance pay for assignment employees.

As is the case with the issue of continuance of employment, the amendments proposed within Bill 139 construct an inconsistency between the employer obligation and the reality in the employment context. This is inconsistent with every other jurisdiction within Canada and within North America, and the legislation fails to appreciate the nature of temporary employment term contracts and the staffing services industry.

Section 74.11 amendments establish a new obligation for staffing services employers in the areas of notice and termination. This

section creates a separate and higher standard for staffing company employers and creates a higher cost of burdens and liabilities for staffing companies compared to all other employers within every other industry. This is not fair. These amendments also stand in direct contrast to the government's stated intent, which is to ensure that Ontario's employment legislation recognizes the needs of temporary employees and employers in a fair and balanced way.

The proposed amendments will, however, create confusion and ambiguity for workers and employers, while also creating an impossible standard for record-keeping and administration associated with inactive workers. The amendments are prohibitive from an administrative standpoint. What are we doing? Increased costs disable staffing companies' ability to provide services to clients and to job seekers. This isn't right.

Short-term workers who are unemployed and underemployed and who are in most need of work will either not be offered employment because of the increased costs associated with not remaining consistently employed, or they will be permanently terminated prior to achieving the three months of tenure. This will not have a positive impact on the removal of barriers and will serve to limit employment opportunities for Ontario workers.

There are recommendations for termination and severance. That is to delete subsection 74.4(2):

"An assignment employee of a temporary help agency does not cease to be the agency's assignment employee because, ...

"(

b) he or she is not assigned by the agency to perform work for a client on a temporary basis."

Do not impose a different and higher legislative standard on staffing firm employers. Respect well-established and recognized employment principles and provisions contained in the act.

Ontario Employment Standards Act regulation 288/01 identifies employees who are not entitled to notice of termination or termination pay under

part XV of the act, subsection 2(1). It states that the notice of termination and termination pay requirements of the ESA do not apply to an employee who was hired for a specific length of time or to do a specific task. Now we're contradicting.

Regulating business terms and client fees within service agreements: Paragraph 8 of subsection 74.8(1) and "Exception" subsection (2) limit a temporary help agency from charging a fee to a client in connection with the services provided. The client is always a company or organization and is never the worker or candidate. Controlling financial business terms between a staffing service and client represents a misapplication of employment standards legislation in the area of consumer and commercial transactions.

The ESA governs the relationship between employers and employees in Ontario. The act should not be misused to interfere with established contractual business agreements between staffing firms and their clients. Temporary help services incur significant advertising, recruitment, background, screening, risk and other overhead costs and should be permitted to offer their services to clients without the government's arbitrary interventions, limitations and restrictions upon legitimate business terms.

This provision fails to provide any meaningful benefit to low-wage workers and will significantly damage the largest percentage of the industry providing this important service in the areas of information technology, accounting, engineering, medical services and other professional services. These amendments will cause significant hardship and irreparable harm to staffing service companies, and by extension to their clients and the candidates for employment.

There is a recommendation for regulating business terms and client fees within service agreements. The suggestion is to remove paragraph 8 of subsection 74.8(1) and "Exception" subsection (2), which interfere with business terms, and refocus attention on employment-related issues such as employment agreements and employment terms so that a worker is never unfairly restricted from seeking employment with prospective employers.

The timing of this legislation is concerning, both in terms of meddling with employers—good employers—in a challenging economy, and how swiftly Mr. McGuinty wants to implement this bill. The implementation is to be a mere six months after the bill receives royal assent. That seems a little quick to me. I would say that the stakeholders have given this bill more thought than the government has and the quality of their argument proves that. It's a true shame—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Excuse me, member for Burlington. I'm sorry, but we've reached 10:15.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): According to the standing orders, this House is recessed until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1016 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Jeff Leal: It is a great pleasure for me today to introduce some elected representatives from the riding of Peterborough. First of all, we have the warden of Peterborough county, Ron Gerow; the deputy reeve of Havelock-Belmont-Methuen, Mr. Andy Sharpe; J. Murray Jones, the reeve of Douro-Dummer; Karl Moher, the deputy reeve of Douro-Dummer; Jim Whelan, the reeve of North Kawartha; and Barry Rand, the deputy reeve of North Kawartha. They're here today to celebrate Peterborough-Northumberland-Quinte West Day here at Queen's Park. Let's give them a warm welcome.

Mr. Norm Miller: I have two introductions today. First of all I have Carolyn Tripp, director of planning from the township of Georgian Bay, who's here visiting. Also, we have Jeff Johnston, who is the mayor of Kearney, here at Queen's Park today.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I want to welcome 90 grade 5 students from McKinnon Public School. They are here at the Legislature today and they will be in the Legislature later on. I also want to extend a very warm welcome to their teachers and the volunteers who are with them.

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey: I'd like to introduce my new intern, who is visiting from the University of Akron, Ohio, the Bliss Institute of Applied Politics. His name is Richard Carnifax. I'd like to welcome him. He's here until May 2.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I take this opportunity, on behalf of the Minister of the Environment and page Rachel Goldstein, to welcome her mother, Liz VanDenKerkhof, sitting in the east members' gallery today; and on behalf of the member from Wellington—Halton Hills and page Emily Wilson, her mother, Susan Wilson; her father, Don Wilson; her sister, Elizabeth Wilson; her grandmother, Ellen Dolon; and her godfather, Dino Vavala, sitting in the west gallery this morning. Welcome to all of you to Queen's Park.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RENEWABLE ENERGY AND

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr. John Yakabuski: This is for the Premier. The editorial in today's National Post says it all: "An Energy Plan that Won't Help." They say that the energy minister's boast of only a 1% increase in energy costs cannot be believed.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Please continue.

Mr. John Yakabuski: They go on to say the following: "Just because someone slaps the word 'green' on a piece of legislation doesn't make it intelligent or forward-thinking. This is not the energy policy that Ontario needs...."

Premier, what do you have to say to the National Post? They condemn your policy. Have they got it right and you've got it wrong?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Nepean—Carleton may want to be in her seat.

Premier.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm always interested in getting the views of the good people at the National Post, but they are not really my intended audience when it comes to the Green Energy Act. We're focused on Ontario families and Ontario businesses. We are very eager to move forward with our Green Energy Act. It's fundamentally about new jobs, it's about clean, green electricity and it's about fighting climate change. We have found a way through public policy to make sure we can do all of those things. Fifty thousand jobs I think is the single most important achievement that we will make through this Green Energy Act.

I thought at one point in time that my colleague opposite was supportive of these kinds of measures. I find it passing strange that he's no longer interested in pursuing this kind of progressive policy.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: They talked about the price of energy under this act, Premier, and you and the minister like to use your mothers as examples. I want to talk about Germany and Denmark, where energy costs are four times what they are here in Ontario. Even if energy rates only rise to half of what they are in Germany and Denmark, your mothers will have to reduce their consumption. Even if they reduce it by 20%, their energy bills will still be 70% higher than they are today. How are your mothers going to feel about that?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Just to stick to the big picture for a moment, there are a few things that we know with absolute certainty. The price of oil and gas is going up. We know something else for sure: Over time, the price for solar power will come down, the price for wind power will come down, the price for biomass and biogas will come down. We know for sure that when we buy our oil and gas, we're not creating a single job. We know for sure that if we invest in solar, in biogas and biomass and wind power, we're creating thousands and thousands of jobs in the province of Ontario. We're putting our money on the future, not on a past that's gone.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: We'll talk about those jobs in a few minutes, Premier, but maybe you're going to wish at the end of the day that you were still being scolded on the Lord's Prayer.

If the Premier doesn't like what the National Post has to say, maybe he's a little closer to the Toronto Star. An

article by Tyler Hamilton questions whether our colleges and universities are even equipped to train the workers to work on these energy projects. He speaks to Frank Macedo, an electrical engineering consultant who used to oversee the transmission planning for the province. He said that the jobs you're promising aren't going to happen in the next three years; more likely five to 10 years.

Premier, the experts in the field don't agree with your figures. Either you didn't consult with them before you put together this bill or you've ignored their advice. We need jobs today, not five or 10 years from now.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I love this challenge. They're telling us that we're going to have to take heroic measures in order to ensure that we can train enough people; I love that challenge. They're telling us we're not going to be able to keep up with the demand for these kinds of new initiatives and these kinds of jobs; I love that challenge. That's why we're going to continue to move ahead.

You know, again, I'm wondering what happened between the election and now when it comes to the Conservative Party. One of their specific commitments, and I'll quote it for you, says, "We will require home energy audits before every sale of a house." That was good policy then; it's good policy now. What happened to them in the face of a little bit of opposition?

RENEWABLE ENERGY AND

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Premier. Back to the same—

Interjections.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I can't even hear—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I can hear you.

Member?

Mr. John Yakabuski: The Premier touted this bill as part of his stimulus package. Again, the National Post points out: "It's intriguing that the Ontario government should be pursuing such a scheme at a time when the best minds, in all the governments of sufficiently advanced democracies, are frantically trying to figure out 'stimulus' measures for putting fast cash in the pockets of those who need spending money"—rather than saddling Ontarians with a new $300 tax on their homes.

Premier, why don't you talk about how you're going to put $300 into their pockets instead of taking it out of their pockets to pay for an audit?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know that my colleague is making reference to our new home energy audit requirement, but again, I'm going to quote from the platform: "We will require home energy audits before every sale of a house so that the market will reward homes which are energy efficient. This will be a signal to homeowners that they will get a return on energy investments in their homes."

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Who said that?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: They said that. They were right then and they're wrong now. Nobody ever said putting in place good public policy was going to be easy. Why are they running from a little bit of opposition?

I'm convinced that at the end of the day, when Ontarians come to fully understand what this is all about—50,000 jobs, clean energy and fighting climate change—they will want to know how quickly they can get on board.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Premier, there's nothing green about

an act that is going to put consumers, families and businesses in the red. If you want $300 audits, then pay for them. Don't take more money out of taxpayers' pockets, ratepayers' pockets. Because it's not just their energy bills that are going to skyrocket; the cost of everything they buy or produce is going to go up under this legislation. We see that every time the price of oil spikes. The difference is that with this bill there will be no hope of price relief for consumers in the future. Talk about kicking people when they're down.

Premier, why would you force Ontarians to pay more for everything they need at a time when they can afford it the least?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, it's interesting to observe the twisting about on the other side there. Here's a quote from the MPP for Durham during the course of a debate when one of my colleagues, Phil McNeely, introduced this very concept as part of a private member's bill. He said in response:

"I want to commend the member for doing the right thing....

"The point I want to make is this: First of all, this was one of the planks in our platform in the election.... Okay? It was in our platform. Therefore, it must be a good decision. It's efficient use of our resources, in the general sense."

What happened to this party, which was so wed to this progressive concept before the election? Now, in the face of a little bit of opposition, they're wilting, they're melting, they're putting as much distance between them and this as they possibly can.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: You know, Premier, we have to wonder about your and the minister's mindset in designing this bill. Look at the draconian measures in the bill: warrantless searches into businesses—

Interjections.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: Speaker, this is too much fun.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): You want to sit in this chair and experience it? I want to be able to hear the question, though. Please continue.

Mr. John Yakabuski: You have to wonder where the Premier and the minister's mindset is on the design of this bill. Let's look at the draconian measures in the bill: warrantless searches into businesses, that the minister didn't even know about when asked about it by the media yesterday; search warrants to get into people's homes to check on compliance with the act; and finally, telling municipally elected officials that the Premier and the minister are going to override their rights, as the elected representatives of their people, to write laws and bylaws within their municipalities.

Once this bill is passed, the precedent will be set. Premier, is this how municipalities can expect to be treated in the future? What other municipal powers do you intend to strip away from those duly elected representatives?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I had the opportunity just a couple of days ago to speak at the combined convention of the Good Roads people and the Rural Ontario Municipal Association, and spoke to this very issue. It was very well received. There is a—

Mr. John Yakabuski: I was there. You didn't even talk about it. The bill wasn't even tabled yet.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The issue of trying to keep the tone down goes both ways within this House. The honourable member just asked the question, and I would hope that he would at least listen to the response.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There was great receptivity to the idea that we can do something together as Ontarians to create jobs, to fight climate change, and get clean and green electricity. There was also an understanding that it's very important that we ensure that we have an economic environment that welcomes those kinds of investments.

We're going to work with our municipal partners to make sure that we get a provincial standard right. What I am saying is, you can't say no to a wind turbine because you don't like the look of the darned things. We're going to find a way—

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

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Premier. I wonder, does the Premier recognize this quote? "It doesn't make any sense that a worker in Thunder Bay has to work more hours to qualify and get fewer weeks of EI support than a worker in Fort McMurray. Surely, a worker in Thunder Bay or Windsor or Hamilton deserves the same support as a Canadian living in Alberta."

This morning, we learned that the number of Ontario EI recipients has increased by 30%. What has the Premier done since he made the quote in August 2008 to ensure that Ontario EI recipients are treated fairly?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the question. My colleague will know that as a result of efforts made, both by our government and collectively through a few resolutions in this House, we have together secured some real gains for the people of Ontario on a number of fronts. I want to thank my colleague and his party for their support when it comes to achieving those gains. But there is more work to be done and my honourable colleague puts his finger on it. The fact of the matter is that workers in Ontario are the subject of discrimination when it comes to employment insurance benefits.

They are receiving fewer resources on a per capita basis than Canadians living in other parts of the country. That is not justifiable, it is not tenable and we need to continue to work together to put pressure on the federal government. I ask him to speak to his federal leader to ensure that he understands how important this is to Ontario workers.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: The federal budget came and went. Unemployed Ontario workers are still being shortchanged. They receive far less in benefits than they should and those benefits aren't being paid out nearly as long as they should. How does the Premier explain the total failure of the so-called EI fairness campaign?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It sounds like my friend is ready to give up on this. We're not.

We sometimes have to play the longer game. Not willingly, but that's just the nature of the animal when it comes to working with various federal governments. We are going to have to continue to collectively—and again, I urge my honourable colleague to speak to his federal leader and ask him to raise these kinds of issues in the House of Commons during question period. He has the possibility there to introduce a resolution, a private member's bill or other kinds of initiatives to ensure that that decision, which has to be made in the House of Commons in Ottawa, stands to the benefit of Ontario workers. I ask my colleague to keep working in that regard.

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

Mr. Paul Miller: Thank you for the kind words, Premier. However this failure, whether it be federal or provincial, is being felt across our province. In London, EI claims have jumped 75.5%; Windsor posted a 61% increase in EI claims; Kitchener, a 51% increase; and Hamilton, my city, a 42% increase. At the root of the problem are the hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs that have been lost in Ontario in recent months due to the absence of any sort of jobs strategy from the government. Will the Premier now admit that not only is the EI fairness campaign a failure, but that he has made it worse by having no jobs plan to put Ontario back to work?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Well, now we

part company. What my honourable colleague is saying is that he doesn't support our five-point plan. What he's saying is that he doesn't support those billions of dollars we've invested in new schools, new hospitals, new roads, new bridges, new public transit and new border infrastructure, and the thousands and thousands of jobs that is creating and putting people to work right now. The investment we continue to make in strengthening our workforce, the 11,000 more kids who are graduating from high school every year; he doesn't support that. Fifty thousand more apprentice trainees; he doesn't support those.

A hundred thousand more young people in colleges and universities; he doesn't support those. That's all part of our five-point plan. We continue to move on that and we look forward to building on it through our budget.

GREEN POWER GENERATION

Mr. Rosario Marchese: To the Premier: The Green Energy Act sets no timelines or targets for increasing renewable energy in Ontario. Despite the rhetoric of transformation, the government is continuing its go-slow approach to green energy. Under this government's plan, come 2027, Ontario will still have less wind power than Texas has today and less than one fifth the solar panels Germany puts in in one year.

Greenpeace, the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, the David Suzuki Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund all say that unless the government increases its targets for renewable energy, the Green Energy Act will be a greenwash. When will the government set serious targets for renewable energy to match your green rhetoric?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure.

Hon. George Smitherman: I want to thank the honourable member for his question, and I want to ask him one in return, as we'd like to hear from that party about their intentions with respect to the bill.

On the matter that the member has raised, I would say that he's quite off base on two points. Firstly, he references 2027. He's manufacturing something there. I don't know what it's a reference to, but it's certainly made up.

A characteristic of a feed-in tariff is not to associate it with targets or caps. Targets say what you're limiting. They don't say, "We encourage all investors to come forward with their projects in a variety of forms so we can take advantage of them." It says that we have a mindset, a limit, in terms of how much investment we're prepared to accept. The feed-in tariff model that we have adopted is inspired by Europe, where they did not suffer through the targets that the honourable member is referencing in this question.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: The main reason the government is stuck in neutral on renewable energy is that it has stubbornly committed to powering 50% of the grid through waste-producing, expensive, unsafe, new nuclear energy. With all that nuclear, there is simply no room on the grid for significant new renewable energy.

A study by professors at the Ivey School of Business says that the McGuinty government has failed to stimulate investment in green energy because of investor uncertainty about the government's long-term commitment to green energy. Why won't this government put green energy first in this province by enshrining in the act strong and long-term public targets for renewable energy?

Hon. George Smitherman: I do encourage the honourable member to absorb this point, because it's a matter of culture. If the honourable member wants to work in an environment that is about targets, those are about limits.

A feed-in tariff model, combined with the right to access to the grid and with certainty about regulation, is not about targets or limits; it's about creating certainty around the investor climate, that, "If you're willing to make the investment, we will buy it, we will connect it, and we will do so in a faster fashion than has ever been done before."

Where I do agree with the honourable member is that it's necessary to move forward promptly with a new model that sees substantial new investment in transmission and especially in creating the capacity for our local distribution companies, like Toronto Hydro, as an example, to have the capital resources and the encouragement to invest today in building a model of distributed generation which allows thousands of rooftops in the city of Toronto to come to life as electricity generators. This is what the honourable member will see in the next month.

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

Mr. Rosario Marchese: It's not only environmental groups and professors who are criticizing the bill. Today in the Toronto Star, industry observers cast doubt on the government's claim that 50,000 new jobs will be created over three years. A former Ontario Hydro director called the jobs claim "a tall order." The government says that 20,000 jobs will be created in three years in transmission and distribution projects, but such projects can take up to 10 years to get going. Meanwhile, the government refuses to promise a minimum 60%-domestic-content measure as is used in Quebec.

I know the Premier loves the challenge; maybe you do, too. When will you show Ontarians how you came up with the figure of 50,000 jobs?

Hon. George Smitherman: A couple of points there. Firstly, yesterday in this House, the leader of that member's party talked about Quebec's domestic content and said that it was enshrined in legislation in Quebec, which is a fallacy. It has been done only through Quebec's procurement model. We have enshrined in the legislation and given ministerial directive capability for moving forward domestic content, which is related to legislation, a much stronger approach than Quebec has offered.

The honourable member obviously has not digested the bill from the standpoint of transmission. Embedded in the bill are efforts related to the Environmental Assessment Act to substantially expedite the capacity to build new transmission in this province, instead of the snail's pace which has been the norm.

With respect to building new transmission, this bill takes special steps to be able to move those projects forward, and I will move forward with a ministerial directive on distribution and transmission within one month.

STUDENT SAFETY

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: My question is to the education Premier. Premier, I have asked you and your Minister of Education repeatedly in this House to implement mandatory reporting and protect the young victims who are bullied and abused in your schools. Your solution is to throw money at this issue. It isn't just about money, Mr. Premier; it's about follow-through and protecting the victims who continue to feel threatened and unsafe in your schools as the bullying and abuse continues unchecked.

Premier, can you tell the growing number of victims of student-on-student violence in Ontario schools why they continue to be ignored by the system and left to fend for themselves in fear in the midst of your inaction and rhetoric on this issue?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm not sure I agree with all the language used by my honourable colleague, but she's on to something. There is a real issue here and I think that all of our kids have the right to go to school and to feel safe and to be safe. And all parents have the right to drop their kids off at school or send them through the buses, whether it's elementary or high school, in particular, and to enjoy that sense of comfort and security from knowing that the kids are okay at school. I understand and I believe my honourable colleague supports that.

The fact is that we have been moving in this regard. We have, through our improved Safe Schools Act, by legislation we introduced, included the first-ever penalties for bullying. We have new programs in place for expelled students who might be caught up in that. I can also tell my honourable colleague that we intend to move this spring with more legislation, and I think it will speak specifically to the issue that she's raising here today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: I'm talking specifically about administrative follow-through. Premier, when I last raised this question, there were five people in the gallery; now, there are many more than five, because the number of students who feel unsafe in your schools is growing unchecked on your watch. Your schools are not doing everything they should be to keep these young victims safe. In fact, they make it adversarial and confrontational when parents try to protect their children from student-on-student violence and abuse, and unfortunately, they are failing to prevent continued bullying and abuse.

Premier, it's time to open your eyes and see the hurt and the fear in these children. They're experiencing this and their families feel powerless to stop it. How many more children and families must suffer before you finally address this issue of mandatory reporting in a substantive way?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I say to my colleague that we do intend to move forward with that particular aspect of improvement to the Safe Schools Act this spring. We will be introducing a bill in that regard.

I must say as well that we have been moving forward in other areas. In addition to that change that we made to the legislation, to the Safe Schools Act, to include the first-ever penalties for bullying, we have also trained some 25,000 teachers and 7,500 principals on the matter of bullying, how to recognize it and how to address it.

I want to take the opportunity as well to say something beyond this, which is that we will do everything we can as a government, collectively, to find a way to better address this issue in our schools, but it's also incumbent upon parents to take an interest in the activities of their children. Whether they either are being victimized or they are maybe caught up in something which is a negative activity, I'm saying we all have a role to play in this. We have done something and we will do more in this House.

POVERTY

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Minister of Children and Youth Services, your 25 in 5 bill is more like a five in 25 plan. It will be framework legislation with no specific targets, no specific actions, no specific commitments. The government's own 25 in 5 plan won't even be in the legislation. When will this government finally stop grandstanding on poverty and start raising the minimum wage above the poverty line, reducing the wait-lists for affordable housing and child care, and rolling out the full Ontario child benefit today, rather than in 2011?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I'm really delighted that I will be introducing legislation this afternoon that will enshrine an ongoing commitment to poverty reduction.

We did release our 25 in 5 plan in December. I'm very proud of the work that we have done and that we are committed to doing in the future. We are committed to reducing poverty, to reducing the number of kids living in poverty by 25% over the next five years. But we know that's just the first step. We know that we need an ongoing commitment to poverty reduction. The legislation that we'll be introducing this afternoon, and that I hope you will support, will commit future governments to continue to work on reducing poverty in this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Ontarians can only conclude one thing: that the McGuinty Liberals would rather pay lip service to the poor than to actually help them. At a time when more people are falling into poverty every day, there will be nothing in the government's legislation to lessen the burden for these people—no plan, no strategy, absolutely nothing. What use is a poverty plan that has no plan? Indeed, the only thing you can say about it is, it's really poor. What use is it?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I simply don't share the member's pessimism. I actually am very encouraged by the steps that we have taken and that we are committed to taking. I'm especially proud that future governments will continue the work that we have started.

Just as an example, let me tell you what we have already accomplished with the work to date. When we were elected in 2003, a single mom with two kids working a full year at a full-time job had an income of under $20,000. When our strategy is fully implemented, even without any new federal investments, her income will have gone up by 54%. That's over $10,000 in the pockets of that family.

ONTARIO FILM AND

TELEVISION INDUSTRY

Ms. Laurel C. Broten: My question is for the Minister of Culture. My riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore has the benefit of having important economic clusters in many sectors, including small manufacturing, printing, small business retail, and film and television production. In particular, film and television production is an important economic driver in Etobicoke—Lakeshore, yet this industry has suffered and declined in recent years. As a result, it is imperative that the government play an important role in promoting Ontario as a premier location for film production through financial incentives and programs.

Minister, what is our government doing to help Ontario's film and television industry remain competitive with other jurisdictions during these challenging economic times?

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: The McGuinty government understands, indeed, that this is a challenging time for Ontario's film and television industry. So in order to help that industry and help them remain competitive in this tough economic climate, our government is proposing to make our increased production tax credits permanent. This will give businesses the certainty that they need for investment and for planning. If passed, domestic film productions will continue to be eligible for the 35% tax credit and foreign for the 25%. These are very competitive rates vis-à-vis other jurisdictions.

Indeed, such financial incentives will combine with our world-renowned creative talent, our technical expertise and all of our wonderful first-class facilities to ensure that Ontario remains a key film production centre here in Canada and abroad.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Laurel C. Broten: I'm certainly encouraged to hear that the government is taking such a strong and pro-active position on this important matter. With three new productions underway or set to start in Etobicoke—Lakeshore as we speak, the film and television industry is key to the economic health of my community, and of course to that of many regions in Toronto and across the province.

Another current challenge that film productions face is securing funding for early-stage development activities, including scriptwriting, concept and story development. In these tough economic times it's even more crucial for our film industry to secure early funding so they can develop marketable products. Minister, can you tell this House what the government is doing to better support Ontario companies seeking to attract financing and attempting to bring their projects closer to production?

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: I thank the honourable member for her insight and understanding of what this industry does for the province and how it impacts on her riding.

This industry contributes $671 million to our economy, or did so last year, and we understand the real competitive advantage that film production and screen-based industries give to our economy. Consequently, the government just recently provided $2 million to those important industries through the screen-based content initiative, administered by the Ontario Media Development Corp. This funding is supporting the work of 49 Ontario companies as they create marketable entertainment for this country and the world, just exactly the kind of smart investment a smart government should be making.

The government understands that to lead the way by investing in these industries, that this is vital to the ongoing transition of our—

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

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, and it concerns the Second Career program. Ernest Kiss is a constituent of mine from Collingwood who is looking to be retrained in business. He registered and qualified for retraining under the Second Career program, but the day before classes began, Mr.

Kiss received a phone call from your ministry indicating that he no longer qualified for the program because, apparently, the course level he chose was too high for the level of job he was seeking, even though he knows of others who have received funding for the very same course. We talked to him yesterday and he told us, "It's like they're trying to do everything but help you get a job." Mr. Kiss wants to take the course and get back into the workforce. Minister, why won't you let him do that?

Hon. John Milloy: I appreciate the concern the honourable member has for his constituent. As is always the case, if any member brings forward a case, I'd be very happy to look into it and get back to him with the details on it.

The fact is, through Employment Ontario, we have a variety of services which are available to those who are looking for a job, such as my friend's constituent. Through Employment Ontario, we serve about 900,000 people a year for a variety of training programs, both short term and long term. There are certain eligibility requirements for both of them. But I'm pleased to report to the House that we've seen 6,300 people come forward for Second Career. We've seen about 9,000 people come forward for short-term training since June. At the same time, we're working with literally tens of thousands of other Ontarians who need support in finding employment.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Minister, I'll send Mr. Kiss's letter over to you so you can look into it.

In the meantime, let me tell you about another case. Ben Gaston of Alliston, also in my riding, has applied to the Second Career program for a six-month gasfitter's training course at Hi-Mark Occupational Skills Training Centre in Barrie, which is an accredited training provider for the Technical Standards and Safety Authority.

Ben is already qualified as a sheet metal worker and with his gasfitter's certificate he'll be able to get a job in six months, but your ministry has said no. They won't let him go to Hi-Mark, even though it's accredited by an agency of the government of Ontario. Instead, your officials are telling him he has to spend the next two years at Humber College, when all he needs is a six-month certificate to get a job and get back into the workforce.

These are two examples of what thousands of Ontarians are going through when they try to get into your Second Career program. Why won't you cut the red tape, recognize the Hi-Mark training centre and help Mr. Gaston get a job?

Hon. John Milloy: I think the member appreciates the fact that I can't stand here and, on the basis of a 30-second question, give an analysis of the situation he's raising. I'd be happy to look into it.

I reject the premise of his question. He says thousands of Ontarians are finding obstacles in moving forward with Second Career. The fact of the matter is, we've seen 6,300 people come forward, and let me share stories with the Legislature. Violet, a young, single parent, was laid off as a packer at a local plant. Second Career is helping her attend the construction techniques program at Conestoga College. This course will give Violet the credit she needs to complete her general education diploma and enable her to complete the math course that's a prerequisite to apprenticeship.

Let me tell the House about Zoltan, a young man I met, who was laid off after working 16 years at a plant in Oakville. Zoltan's previous studies, combined with some work experience in the electronics field, made him an ideal candidate for Mohawk College—

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

INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONTROL

Mr. Peter Kormos: The question is to the Attorney General. We recently learned that the government of Ontario blew 23.4 million bucks to get a judgment for $3.5 million. How many millions of dollars is this government going to spend fighting SARS victims, including 53 health care workers?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Of course SARS was a terrible tragedy in so many areas, and we will never forget those who suffered and never forget the lessons that we have learned as a result of it. There has been ongoing litigation. All those matters are before the courts. In fact, there is an appeal of a procedural step that both parties are appealing.

But there have been a lot of lessons learned out of the terrible SARS tragedy, and I know in the subsequent questions, my colleague the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care will want to speak to some of the steps that have been taken to make sure that when infection tragedies strike, we are so much better positioned to deal with them than we were in the past.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Kormos: You see, we're talking about the people who were victims of SARS, including 53 health care workers, who look for nothing more than fair compensation for their losses. Rather than lining the pockets of lawyers, why doesn't this Attorney General take his own counsel, apologize, sit down, and negotiate a fair settlement instead of creating huge legal fees for all the parties?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: To the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. David Caplan: In June 2004, our government released Operation Health Protection, a three-year action plan to revitalize our public health system. The third and final year of the plan has ended, and significant work has been accomplished under each of the plan's six strategic priorities. For the information of the House, we have created the Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion.

We have renewed public health in numerous ways and, I would submit to you, implemented the recommendations of the Campbell report and increased the share of funding for mandatory programs from the previous low levels to 75%. We've enhanced health emergency management by creating the emergency management unit, a dedicated branch of the public health division. We've enhanced community and infection control of communicable disease by establishing the PIDAC, the Provincial Infectious Diseases Advisory Committee, and 14 infectious control networks. We have implemented—

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

MUNICIPALITIES

Mr. Phil McNeely: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, this week over 1,000 municipal representatives from across Ontario representing rural and urban communities gathered in Toronto for the Ontario Good Roads Association and Rural Ontario Municipal Association joint conference. I know that local representatives of my home city and the minister's, Ottawa, were in attendance throughout the conference. There have been a number of speeches, delegation meetings with ministers and ministers' forums Tuesday afternoon.

The representatives at the conference are looking for ways that they can assist their communities through these troubled economic times. They are sharing with each other best practices and looking to the province for guidance to ensure their cities and towns come out stronger than ever.

Could the minister please report to the House the details of the how the OGRA/ROMA conference went?

Hon. Jim Watson: I thank the honourable member from Ottawa—Orléans. It was a very constructive conference the last three days, as over 1,300 delegates from rural Ontario joined with close to 15 cabinet colleagues and parliamentary assistants. The Premier really set the tone and was very well received by the delegates, receiving, by the way, a standing ovation as a result of his commitment to infrastructure for rural Ontario, his commitment to ensure that red tape would be cut and that we would fast-track initiatives like environmental assessment for public transit and fast track green energy projects.

We were also particularly pleased to meet with the eastern and western wardens; we had some very good discussions and dialogues with those individuals. We're particularly pleased to highlight some of the significant historic record investment in infrastructure in rural Ontario. We're there for—

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

Mr. Phil McNeely: Thank you, Minister, for that. I know that in your speech you gave examples of the innovative solutions being used by Ontario municipalities to not only meet today's economic realities but respond to the environmental challenges that we are all facing. In order for innovations like these and others to continue, we need to assist municipalities as best we can to provide all communities, small and large, with the support they need.

On a number of occasions, I have heard from municipal leaders about the costs they incur because of court security that they are providing not only to their own residents but for surrounding municipalities in their regions. Could the minister please tell the House how our government, and his ministry in particular, is reducing the financial burden on municipalities, especially rural municipalities?

Hon. Jim Watson: I'm very pleased to answer the honourable member's question. When we sat down with AMO and the city of Toronto, the Minister of Finance and I talked about a long-term, principled approach to uploading.

After years of disastrous downloading by the previous Tory government, this government is in the business of partnering and treating our municipal partners with respect. That's why we have already uploaded the Ontario drug plan. We are uploading ODSP. We've brought funding up to the public—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Please continue.

Hon. Jim Watson: I know the Tories are upset because their leader, for the first time in a decade, didn't get a standing ovation from ROMA when he spoke to the delegates, including members of his own caucus.

Let me continue: Kawartha Lakes, $11.2 million; the good people of Northumberland—Investing in Ontario—$1 million; Quinte West, $4 million; Peterborough, $7.1 million—

Mr. John O'Toole: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. I'm not going to accept the point of order. It's understood we don't raise points of order during question period.

Mr. John O'Toole: I was trying to make the point that the minister should—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): No. Do you remember former Deputy Speaker Mr. Johnson talking about two people standing at once?

New question.

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. I know this week he was as concerned as me and every other member from Ottawa when we learned that 90% of the patients at the Ottawa Hospital were waiting at least 360 days for an MRI. That's 12 times the provincial target, which was set by your government at 28. I need to know, how could you have let this happen?

The Champlain LHIN CEO has indicated we can get out of this mess if we streamline all of the MRI wait-lists in the city of Ottawa. He also indicated that we need anywhere between one to three new MRIs.

So my question to you, Minister: Have you contacted the CEO of our LHIN and our local hospitals to work on streamlining those lists, and more importantly, when will one, two or even three new MRIs hit the city of Ottawa so we can make sure that those people waiting for an MRI get it in a timely manner?

Thank you for your—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. David Caplan: I do want to thank the member for the question, because this is a serious matter—having people in Ottawa and eastern Ontario have access to important diagnostic services.

In fact, I was in Ottawa. I had a chance to be hosted by Dr. Cushman at the LHIN office to meet in a round-table format with hospital and CCAC officials and others interested in this issue in particular. I can report to the member that three MRI machines have been placed into Ottawa: one at the Queensway Carleton Hospital, one at the Ottawa Hospital, and one at the Montfort Hospital. In fact, they have recently come into service. The data is older data, and you will see, as we move forward, that those wait-lists are coming down. In fact, across the province, wait times for MRIs, while there is still much more work to do, have come down 22%.

I do thank the—

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

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: Last summer, Dr. Alan Hudson, leader of Ontario's wait times strategy, said that our Champlain LHIN, which includes Ottawa, had the longest waiting lists in the province in a whole number of areas, including MRIs. The Premier, in response to this disastrous report for Ottawa, said that wait times for MRIs had gone down 37%. Does that mean that wait times last summer were 500 days? Does it mean that wait times were much less last summer and much higher now?

We have three cabinet ministers in this Legislature from the Ottawa area, including the Premier. When are you going to do your job, as ministers, and get this problem fixed for Ottawa and eastern Ontario? Health services wait times are longer in the Premier's city—

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

Hon. David Caplan: This is a member who presided over the closure of the Riverside Hospital and the Grace hospital and attempted to close the Montfort Hospital. I think it's rather surprising that he would come into this House—in fact, since 2003 we've almost doubled the number of MRI exams per year in the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Please continue.

Hon. David Caplan: As I was saying, since 2003, when the member was on this side of the House, we have almost doubled the number of MRI exams per year in the province of Ontario, from more than 276,000 to over 560,000 procedures. I would add that if this member were to be allowed to implement his program of another $3-billion cut to our health care system, I shudder to think what the good people of Ottawa and Ontario would experience: further health care cuts under this member's—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. The member for Nickel Belt.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée.

Hon. David Caplan: I do thank the member for the question, because I have instructed the ministry and they are well aware that while the LHINs must engage their public's local leaders, there are two very special and important kinds of engagements which need to happen of a constitutional and a fundamental nature. One, of course, is with our First Nations people. The other, of course, is with the francophone community in the province of Ontario. That's why we posted for comment for the francophone community a proposed regulation. We have gone through that period of consultation and received considerable feedback.

I am working with an advisory committee which has been struck and is traditionally providing advice to the Minister of Health and working with my colleague the minister of francophone affairs to be able to ensure that that engagement of our francophone community in the provision of health care service is provided.

I welcome any constructive—

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

Donc, on se demande, pourquoi le délai ? Pourquoi est-ce qu'il faut continuer d'attendre ? Il y a consensus. Mettons ce modèle d'engagement de la communauté francophone en place même si le comité veut continuer. Mais les RLISS font leur travail en ce moment. Ils prennent des décisions qui ont un impact sur la vie des francophones pendant que les francophones n'ont pas un processus d'engagement en place. Quand est-ce qu'on va l'avoir ?

Hon. David Caplan: Well, as the member points out in her question, there is not one view in the francophone community; there are many. The francophone community is quite diverse in the province of Ontario and exists throughout the entire geography of the province. There are needs, whether that would be in Niagara or in northern Ontario, in eastern Ontario or in the southwest.

This government takes the time to listen to the constructive suggestions of members of the francophone community. I would say to the member opposite that if she too has constructive ideas, we would very much welcome her suggestions. I have not heard any in her comments today, but she would be very free to forward any of those particular ideas and ways that we can strengthen the engagement between local health integration networks and members of the francophone community in order to be able to provide French-language services appropriately to members of the community in a way that would be beneficial to them.

We are going to work and continue—

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

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Bill Mauro: My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, in the summer of 2003, I made a commitment to provide enhanced cardiac services in my riding of Thunder Bay—Atikokan and for all of northwestern Ontario. While our Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre provides world-class care in many areas, we had never been able to receive angioplasty services in our region. As a result, thousands of patients from northwestern Ontario have had to leave our region and fly to Ottawa, Toronto or Hamilton for this procedure.

This would place a great deal of strain on the patient and the family of the patient, and in some cases result in a death where the patient was not able to reach the southern Ontario destination in time. Many families were unable to accompany their loved ones for financial reasons, making an already difficult situation even worse.

Minister, can you please provide this House with an update on the progress that has been made with regard to the provision of angioplasty services at Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre in Thunder Bay, to the benefit of all of northwestern Ontario?

Hon. David Caplan: I want to thank the member from Thunder Bay—Atikokan. I would also acknowledge the incredible work that my colleague Minister Gravelle has done to advocate for continued improvement to health care in northern Ontario.

I am pleased to share with the member and inform him that we're making good on the commitment that he had the pleasure to announce back in 2003. Earlier this month, we announced that this government is investing $8 million in a new angioplasty suite at Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre.

Northern Ontario has one of the highest rates of cardiac disease in the province. Over the past year, about 450 people from the region had to be transferred to other hospitals in Ontario to receive this angioplasty procedure.

When it's up and running in 2010-11, Thunder Bay's new angioplasty suite will be able to perform 550 procedures per year. This will make life easier for patients and their families, especially in northwestern Ontario, because they will—

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

Mr. Bill Mauro: Thank you very much, Minister, for that answer. I know that the constituents in my riding of Thunder Bay—Atikokan will be very pleased to know that we are now expanding the services there that have been running for two years.

Still, given that the new angioplasty suite will not be able to fully accommodate 550 patients until 2010-11, some of the people who require angioplasty will still have to travel to southern Ontario hospitals in the meantime, and the cost of travelling can be very high. I ask the minister: What is our government going to do to help to defray the costs that northern Ontario patients have to pay when they have to travel to receive OHIP-insured services?

Hon. David Caplan: When we don't have the services available close to home in northern Ontario, I'm glad to tell the member that more than 880,000 northern Ontario residents qualify for the northern Ontario travel grant. We process an average of 155,000 applications each and every year.

I want you to know that our government is committed to improving this program. That's why we raised the northern health travel grant mileage rate by 19.7% to 41 cents per kilometre; that's why we implemented an accommodation allowance. We want to help patients who have to travel more than 200 kilometres to pay for a place to stay, if that's needed.

We've come a long way with this program, but we need to recognize that there's more to do to improve the reimbursement time frame. The northern health travel grant enhancement project is on track, I say to the member, to reduce application processing time and to further reduce claim processing time, and the ministry is currently working on—

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

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, as you're well aware, the forestry sector has been devastated in the province of Ontario, but certain areas in the forestry sector have been actively pushing for changes to energy spot market sales so that they could further shut down their mills and sell energy, for those which own dams, rather than run their mills.

Shutting down mills will put a lot more of the people out of work than just the people who work in the mills—the cutters in the forest and the haulers, just to name a few. Minister, how can the Green Energy Act, in relation to the spot market sales, support the forestry sector in the ailing environment it is in?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: I thank the member for the question. I would suspect that this is an example of a mill where the mill and the dam work in synergy. There are a number of mills that in fact do that. One of the opportunities that the mill has is that it can have its production at night, it can store its pulp, and then it can go for demand-response and work with the IESO, the independent system operator, in order to receive some dollars for that demand-response.

That's very much what many of these different mills and dams have been doing. It has been part of our responsibility to work with them, not only on the spot market, but they also can become totally independent through cogeneration. That's why we gave Abitibi, as an example, $20 million for their boiler in Fort Frances-Rainy River, of which they've drawn down $17 million. It's moving forward on a cogeneration project—

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

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: Minister, selling on the spot market could effectively mean that, "In 15 minutes, you're going to be out of work for four hours." How can that be effective in working in the forestry sector so that these individuals have job security?

One of the key areas, when you're talking about job security, is the mill at Iroquois Falls. I know a great number of individuals are concerned in that area, not only at the mill, but also in the surrounding communities, that the sale of that mill could be directly as a result of the inability to sell on the spot market and they're trying to circumvent the system. What this could mean is that the mill could be sold and then the focus would be on selling energy as opposed to providing energy for the mill and the local community.

Will the government commit to ensuring, by buying that mill at Iroquois Falls, that the energy produced at that mill will stay there to support the local communities?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: I have absolutely nothing in front of me from AbitibiBowater with respect to Iroquois Falls. At such time as I do, we'll look at the options that are available to us.

You and I both know that AbitibiBowater is under extraordinary pressure worldwide. It has a significant deficit, $6 billion, a billion that must be paid this year, and they're looking to all of their options.

In the mill in question, they run 24/7 and they work at night. They store their pulp so they can go on the spot market as demand requires it. At first, they thought it was going to be a couple of times a year, and it's maybe up to four or five times a year. That's a plus for any mill, not a minus. They're able to do both: produce, and at the same time help us in terms of the spot market.

What's more important around the green energy is the opportunity to become self-sufficient in another way, through bio-energy—for example, pelletization—or using the biomass in a different way—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. The member for Parkdale—High Park.

MINERAL EXPLORATION

AND PRODUCTION

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: To the Minister of Northern Development and Mines: NDP candidate Lyn Edwards has heard from many residents of Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock who are worried about uranium exploration in their area. They're concerned about the future effects of open-pit uranium mining, such as tonnes of low-level radioactive tailings, contaminated soil and groundwater, and long-term impacts on the local watershed and the farm and recreational land it supplies.

Before exploration heats up and quickly turns to mining, will you commit to commissioning a study to comprehensively examine the health and ecological impacts of uranium exploration and mining?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: As the member will know, we ar