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

June 2, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Jun-02 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 2 June 2009 Mardi 2 juin 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

AND APPRENTICESHIP ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR L'ORDRE DES MÉTIERS

DE L'ONTARIO ET L'APPRENTISSAGE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBER'S BIRTHDAY

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

PENSION PLANS

DRIVE CLEAN

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

CONSUMER PROTECTION

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

INJURED WORKERS

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

ONTARIO ECONOMY

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD

OF ONTARIO

WORKPLACE SAFETY

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

ANTI-SMOKING PROGRAMS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CANADA DAY PARADE

BREAD AND HONEY FESTIVAL

CITY OF BURLINGTON

GLENN AND JEAN COCHRANE

MCHAPPY DAY

STEVEN BRIGHT

SCIENCE FAIR

ST. JOHN AMBULANCE

ITALIAN REPUBLIC DAY

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FAR NORTH ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE GRAND NORD

ST. JOHN AMBULANCE DAY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE JOUR D'AMBULANCE SAINT-JEAN

1516495 ONTARIO INC. ACT, 2009

BICENTENNIAL

OF THE WAR OF 1812 ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE BICENTENAIRE

DE LA GUERRE DE 1812

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

LAND DEVELOPMENT

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

AWARENESS WEEK

NATIONAL TOURISM WEEK /

SEMAINE NATIONALE DU TOURISME

LAND DEVELOPMENT

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

AWARENESS WEEK

NATIONAL TOURISM WEEK

LAND DEVELOPMENT

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

AWARENESS WEEK

VISITORS

PETITIONS

TAXATION

WIND TURBINES

TAXATION

WIND TURBINES

TAXATION

FOCUS COMMUNITY PROGRAM

AIR QUALITY

TAXATION

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

TAXATION

UPPER CANADA VILLAGE

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TOXICS REDUCTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DES TOXIQUES

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

AND APPRENTICESHIP ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR L'ORDRE DES MÉTIERS

DE L'ONTARIO ET L'APPRENTISSAGE

Resuming the debate adjourned on June 1, 2009, on the motion for second reading of Bill 183,

An Act to revise and modernize the law related to apprenticeship training and trades qualifications and to establish the Ontario College of Trades / Projet de loi 183, Loi visant à réviser et à moderniser le droit relatif à la formation en apprentissage et aux qualifications professionnelles et à créer l'Ordre des métiers de l'Ontario.

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

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I'm delighted to be here this morning to enter the debate on Bill 183, the Ontario College of Trades and Apprenticeship Act, in order to modernize the college and trades in the province of Ontario. It's important in this day and age to look after the trades in this province, since we are going to depend on them for many years to come. I heard many speakers before me speak on this subject, and they said many different times that we have a shortage of trades, a shortage of skilled workers who are going to assist us in building this province, building the roads, highways, buildings, plumbing and electrical–many different aspects of trades in Ontario.

For many, many years, people for some reason, psychologically and socially, didn't recognize trades as professions. Parents pushed their kids to be lawyers, to be doctors, nurses, pharmacists, because those jobs back then, and even in the present time, were labelled as respected jobs and attracted more social attraction and had some kind of different respect in the community and among the social structure of our society. Therefore, many different trades were looked at as a second or third level of social ranking of jobs in the province of Ontario.

Therefore, you will notice these days that if you want to call for a plumber, you have to wait maybe one, two, three or four days. If you want to fix your air conditioner, you have to wait many days. Sometimes it's difficult to find a skilled tradesperson to come serve you fast and quickly. Also, at the same time, they make good, good money.

But the most important thing, I guess, from this bill is to regulate this industry, to elevate this industry, socially and also scientifically, because it's very important to support the tradespeople in Ontario, give them some kind of ranking so people respect them, and also convince the youth among us to go study and be tradesmen and tradeswomen.

Since we've built so many different wonderful colleges and provide a great and excellent education for the people of this province to learn some kind of skills, and since so many people want to learn in a professional manner to be able to deliver goods and services for the people of Ontario, to be able to deliver a good quality of service, I think it's important in this bill to try to elevate the status of trades in the province of Ontario and to try and convince the youth, especially after they finish high school, not just to go to university to study a certain subject and in the end discover that they cannot find a job; to go automatically to college and learn a skill and trade can benefit themselves, benefit their families and benefit their province, cities and towns.

It's important, especially right now when we're facing a very difficult time and a very difficult economic downturn in this province—and not just this province, but Canada, North America and the whole globe. It's important to bring our youth, to bring our people, to give them some kind of trade and some kind of skills that they can carry on for the future. Also, so many people have been working for many different years without any skills in a factory and on an assembly line—they have no professional skills.

I think it is the best time for them right now to move on to college, to create a second career for themselves. That's why our government invested heavily in this area, in order to convince many people to obtain some trade.

Also, we hear that people go to many different elements of the trades. Our focus in the establishment of this college is to create some kind of diversity in the trades, to allow people to go in different directions and to educate them about the importance of the different directions and the diverse trades in the marketplace, because some people don't know. If we go to the high schools and campaign and provide some kind of education materials to people about the future jobs that might be in the province of Ontario or in Canada, in our life, then people, at the beginning, after they finish high school, can go and learn about new trades and obtain a trade with a certificate.

Also, we hear a lot of licensing issues. It's very important, when you hire someone to fix your roof or your plumbing system or your air conditioner, to know that that person is licensed by the government and licensed by a college—college recognition—in order to give you some kind of peace of mind that that person is not a fly-by-night person but is licensed and has a certain education and qualifications that give them the ability to fix your air conditioner—or whatever—in a professional manner.

This is what we're facing in the province of Ontario. We sometimes call people and they don't know what they are doing; they come and mess up our equipment, our houses—and then to take them and sue them is a long process. Therefore, the college would establish standards, and I think those standards would be important for all of us, to give the trade and the college some kind of respect and recognition we are looking for, all of us in the province of Ontario.

I think this college and this licensing issue will help the Minister of Labour a lot. It will produce a lot of skilled workers with a licence recognized by a college that is recognized not just in the province of Ontario but maybe in Canada and maybe worldwide—and also give the people who are looking in this area some kind of expertise and professional ability in order to establish some kind of qualifications and standards. Everybody will benefit from it—not just the person who is getting trained but the people who are receiving the service from that person who received that licence from that college.

It's important for us to continue on that path. I heard many different speakers yesterday who spoke in support. They know the value and the importance of establishing this college. As I mentioned to you, since our population is decreasing, not increasing, and since our population is getting older, I think our duty and obligation is to create more qualified people to enter the job market and also create skilled workers to feed the demand that all of us looking for in the province of Ontario.

In the past, the jobs used to be very simple and not sophisticated. Things used to be built on simple stuff, but these days all the jobs—whether mechanic jobs, plumbing jobs, electrical jobs—are becoming very sophisticated and need a lot of education and qualifications to enter that job. In order to fix any equipment right now, you cannot do it with tools we used to have or with the traditional education we used to have. Right now, if you have a car—most cars are built now with computer chips. If you are not trained enough and you don't have qualifications enough, you cannot fix them.

Also, when you go to the plumbing system, now all the plumbing systems are built on some kind of engineering system, a very complex engineering system. If you don't use it efficiently and if you don't know how to fix it in the right way, you might create complications in the plumbing system. Also, if you want to build a house—all the houses are built in an efficient manner to save energy, to save water and to save electricity. All require specialized people.

This college will create some courses and standards and allow all the people who want to go and study to get a licence, to get the qualifications they need in order to enter the market, in order to feed the skilled market in this area with a professional's ability, in order to fix, in order to repair and in order to build whatever they want to do in the province of Ontario.

I'm going to support this bill because it's overdue and I think it's important. When the minister announced it on September 16, I was thrilled and happy to see the province of Ontario going that route to encourage youth to go into a profession that would be respected, would be honoured, would be recognized and would be licensed in Ontario—and that licence can be carried not just throughout the province of Ontario but throughout the nation—and to give them the skill they need. They can carry it wherever they go in the whole globe.

I think our government is taking the right path. I want to congratulate the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities for consulting and hiring Mr. Kevin Whitaker—he's specialized in the labour movement and labour issues—who created those standards after heavy consultations, and to see what kind of ratio we can apply in the marketplace and how we can deal with the issues in the marketplace in a professional and scientific way.

I hope all the members from both sides of the House support that bill when it comes for a vote, because it's important to put the province on the right path and the right track to create skilled, able workers to feed our futures, to maintain prosperity in this province, and also to rebuild and continue building this province in a professional manner and a scientific way.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak. I'm looking forward to vote on it and support it. Hopefully it will pass and become law in the province of Ontario.

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

Mr. Norm Miller: I'm pleased to add comments to the short speech from the member from London—Fanshawe on Bill 183,

An Act to revise and modernize the law related to apprenticeship training and trades qualifications and to establish the Ontario College of Trades. Certainly, I can't argue with many of the points that he was making about the value of skilled workers and the need for more skilled workers in the province of Ontario. I think that's probably something all parties support.

I would question why it has taken this government, now in power, six years, so long to deal with this issue, particularly apprenticeship ratios, an issue that the opposition has been raising countless times.

I have to admit that I am a little suspicious of what this bill is all about. We haven't yet had an opportunity to caucus it. Unfortunately, our critic is in the hospital right now. We wish him well and we hope that he's back here soon to provide further advice, but we look forward to having an opportunity to discuss this bill in caucus.

Certainly, if this bill is passed, our party will be watching the implementation of the college and making sure that it's done in a way that's fair to all of those people that are concerned, especially for our young apprentices who are locked out of jobs right now because of the government's stubbornness on apprenticeship ratios.

This is an issue that many members of the PC Party have been raising on a regular basis, and the government keeps giving non-answers to the questions that we do raise. That's what makes me so suspicious that there's another motive to the implementation of this new Ontario College of Trades.

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

M me France Gélinas: I listened to the member from London—Fanshawe, and I was interested when he first started his comments, talking about the social ranking of people in trades and saying that parents want their children to become a lawyer or a doctor versus an electrician, plumber, millwright or any other trade. I would say that I'm sure that in some parts of Ontario this holds true. Where I come from in northern Ontario, I can tell you that tradespeople are very highly regarded.

I would tend to be a little bit biased towards this: You have to realize that on Friday my daughter graduated as an industrial electrician, so I'm kind of partial to trades. She follows in a long line, my husband also being an industrial electrician, as is her grandfather, my husband's—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: So am I.

M me France Gélinas: And so is the member from Timmins—James Bay.

As I said, tradespeople have an important role to play, and I agree with the member on this one. They are the people who build things, and certainly in an industrial environment like you would find in Sudbury, they are gold. When you need an electrician or a millwright or anybody else and you cannot recruit one, let me tell you that things can be really tough.

There are a number of issues with the bill. Part of it we would certainly support wholeheartedly; part of it leaves us to wonder exactly how it will play out. This is something that I will go into in more detail when I have a little bit more time, but I thank the member for his comments.

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

Hon. Jim Watson: I thank my colleague from Richmond Hill for allowing me a couple of minutes to comment on the Ontario College of Trades. My colleague Minister Milloy has introduced this legislation. It's very forward-looking, and I think it will bring a certain semblance of order and, really, professionalism to the trades, something that at times we tend to ignore.

I'm very proud of the role that the McGuinty government has taken when it comes to supporting the trades. Just last week, I was in Perth with the federal member of Parliament there, Scott Reid, announcing a $9-million contribution for a new campus of Algonquin College in Perth. One of their specialties is heritage masonry and heritage carpentry. We've got to get more young people involved in those skilled trades because more and more people are interested in preserving our built heritage.

About a year ago I was with the Premier in my riding at Algonquin College's Woodroffe Campus, where the Premier announced a $35-million contribution to the skilled trades building at Algonquin. This will be a state-of-the-art LEED-certified building that is going to allow 600 more students to come and learn skilled trades, right at Algonquin College. My colleague Phil McNeely announced funding from the province for La Cité's skilled trades program.

This is a government that is serious about supporting the skilled trades, putting its money where its mouth is and providing more opportunities for young people to get involved in skilled trades. We hear time and time again that the average age of bricklayers, carpenters and masonry experts is getting older and older. We need more young people involved. It helps the housing industry and it helps to continue the growth in our economy.

I'm very pleased to support this particular piece of legislation, and I urge other members to, for our future and the future of young people.

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

Mr. Reza Moridi: It's a pleasure to join the discussion on Bill 183. I wish to thank the members from London—Fanshawe, Parry Sound—Muskoka, Nickel Belt and Ottawa West—Nepean for their comments about the bill.

Yesterday, as we were debating this bill, several points came up in the discussion, and one was about the completion rate of apprentices. We all know that the current completion rate of about 50% is not acceptable. I want to bring to the attention of the House that even in our high schools and universities the completion rate is not 100%—not only in Ontario, not only in Canada, but anywhere in the world. Not every student who enters into education completes. There is a certain percentage of students who complete their education, and the same concept applies for apprentices. We cannot anticipate that 100% of registrants are going to complete their education and get licensed at the end.

However, there are certain reasons why 100% of apprentices are not completing their training program. Some of them decide to challenge the exam, some of them decide to change their profession, and there are various other reasons that they don't complete. But this is one of the points why we would like to bring this college of trades bill to the House. Once it is passed, this institution will be there to help organize and help apprentices to complete their training programs so that they will enter into the job market with a licence in their hands.

The other point is that this college of trades is going to raise the self-confidence of our consumers and the public in the—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. That concludes questions and comments. The member for London—Fanshawe has two minutes to reply.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I want to thank all the people who spoke and commented, especially the member from Parry Sound—Muskoka. I know he had some kind of concern about why the government has taken so long to implement and pass this bill. I want to say something very important: We have to create some kind of a discussion around it and seek some kind of consultation with experts in that field to create the standards and regulations and also to create the diversity component, in order to see what we need in the province of Ontario and what we have to focus on.

The member from Nickel Belt: Thank you very much for your comments. For some reason, people have it in their mind that if you're a doctor you're better than being a plumber, but as a matter of fact right now a plumber is a very high commodity. You can't find them any time; you have to book them maybe a month in advance in order to find a person to fix your plumbing system—or to finish your garden, whatever you're looking for. All those trades are well needed; and they make good, good money—maybe more than doctors, more than nurses, more even than professors.

I also want to thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for his comments outlining our government's commitment to supporting trained and skilled trades in the province of Ontario. I want to tell him also about a success story in London—Fanshawe, at the college. Fanshawe College received a lot of support to create so many different components to train many people who want to train. I want to say that many people go to university and can't find a job—they go back to Fanshawe College.

They go to Local 1059, the training skills facility in London, Ontario, to get trained to be bricklayers or to be cement finishers or to operate certain heavy equipment. All the people are coming back to reality. The skills are well needed, well respected—and also they make good money.

I also want to thank the member who was the lead, the PA for the minister, the honourable member from Richmond Hill, for his comments. It's important for all of us to promote that system and also create a wave of youth going into skills and trades in order to—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. Further debate on this bill?

Mr. Norm Miller: I'm pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill 183,

An Act to revise and modernize the law related to apprenticeship training and trades qualifications and to establish the Ontario College of Trades. I'm speaking to this bill this morning because unfortunately our critic, Mr. Jim Wilson, the member from Simcoe—Grey, the critic for training, colleges and universities, is in hospital and has been in hospital for a week. I hope he's doing well. Jim, if you are watching this, I hope you're coming around and they're getting you back on the mend so you can come back here and speak to this bill. It would be very much appreciated.

I think he's perking up a bit because I've received a couple of e-mails from him. I think he's in good spirits anyway and I hope his health is being looked after, because that is very important. So I'm filling in for Jim this morning.

I haven't had a great opportunity to look at the bill in detail and we haven't had a chance yet to caucus the bill. Today is caucus day, so I'm sure we will be talking about it further at our caucus, which goes on this afternoon. But I have to say that on the surface I am suspicious about the motivations of why the government is putting this bill forward. That's based on what I've seen in the past six years and also their inaction on aspects that have to do with what this bill is going to deal with, the most obvious being apprenticeship ratios.

We've been asking the government over a number of years about apprenticeship ratios. Why is it that the province of Ontario is different than just about every other province in this country? We have an apprenticeship ratio, for example, for an electrician that requires that you must have three licensed journeymen to have one apprentice, and just about anywhere in the country it's one journeyman for one apprentice, which seems to me to make all kinds of sense. It's not rocket science.

This government doesn't need to pass this bill to change those apprenticeship ratios; they could do it next week if they so desired. So there's something else going on. They're under pressure from, I suspect, trade unions that for some reason think limiting new people coming into their trades is a good thing. I think they'd have more members if they made it as open as possible.

We've asked numerous questions. Most recently, on April 30, I asked the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities a question specifically about why they're not addressing this apprenticeship ratio issue. That question came about because of very valid concerns coming from my riding. As I say, we've been asking for a couple of years about why they aren't dealing with this issue.

In February of this year, despite us asking many questions, I received a quick e-mail from Wayne Cormier, a person who is very concerned with stimulating economic activity in the Parry Sound area:

"Subject: Apprenticeship program

"Today I received an inquiry from Bay Area Electrical and Plumbing about what appears to be a real problem with the apprenticeship program. Hopefully, you can help. Presently, it is almost impossible for companies like Bay Area to get licensed plumbers, so they have to train their own. In the case of Bay Area, they have three plumber's licences, but yet can only sign on one apprentice. They were told that they need to have four licences before they can sign up a second apprentice. That doesn't sound right to me when we are desperate for plumbers. Can you help?

"Wayne Cormier."

A logical point to raise, from somebody who's just interested in helping out the economic activity in the area, and a simple question: Why do you need three electricians to supervise one apprentice? If anything, I think it could reasonably be the opposite. You could probably have one journeyman, especially if they're trained to supervise apprentices, to have three apprentices, and then we'd have that many more skilled electricians or plumbers down the way. But no, the government is not addressing that issue despite us asking question after question after question. I say, why is that?

Just recently, on April 7, I received a letter signed by Mayor Dale Robinson from the municipality of McDougall, Mayor Richard Adams from the town of Parry Sound, and Mayor David Conn from the township of Seguin, who's a good friend of Gerry Phillips, I might add.

"Dear Mr. Miller:

"The regional economic development strategy is an area development initiative for the municipality of McDougall, the town of Parry Sound and the township of Seguin. As mayors of the three largest municipalities in the west Parry Sound area we all sit on the regional economic development advisory committee (REDAC), which is responsible for implementing this strategy. Recently, some local businesses from the area have expressed concern to us regarding apprenticeship ratios.

"It has come to our attention that to obtain a second apprentice in a business in some trades you may need at least three licensed journeypeople. We feel that due to the current shortage of the skilled trades workforce in our area a review of these requirements is necessary. In smaller communities such as ours, it is often difficult to have one licensed journeyperson in a business, let alone three.

These ratios are currently putting a halt to the growth of our trades industry because businesses can often only take on one apprentice and therefore eager apprentices are out of work and become discouraged and frustrated. It is our opinion that the apprenticeship ratios should be changed to one apprentice to one journeyperson.

"We hope that you will bring our concerns forward at the provincial level and that you offer some suggestions for next steps that we could take to ensure the proper economic growth is taking place in the trades training industry in our municipalities."

These are very valid concerns being brought forward by people who don't know the nitty-gritty of the rules but just know there's some reason why we aren't providing opportunity for apprentices to develop skills.

In response to the question I asked on April 30, the minister was bragging about how many new entrants they have into the trades area and how registrations are up. Well, that's great except that, as the member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek pointed out yesterday, the completion rate is one of the worst in Canada. So they may have lots of entrants—I know that I used the 48% figure as being the numbers that complete, which is the worst in Canada, and the figure that Paul Miller used was even less than that, a poorer completion rate than that.

We have what seem to be simple problems, and we're not getting a response from this government. It has been in power six years, and they're not dealing with this problem. We all know we have a need for more skilled trades—they're vital to the economy of this province—yet the government is not dealing with it.

I'm suspicious about the real motive behind this bill. I'm suspicious, because I look at what has happened in the past. I'm representing the opposition, the PC Party, and I look back to two elections ago, when there were big advertising campaigns that came out that were paid for by the Working Families Coalition, which happened to be a coalition of union-based groups. They ran ads in the 2003 election, like "Not This Time, Ernie, Not This Time." They had billboards by the subway. They were very effective ads that cost millions of dollars.

The Working Families Coalition is funded by a group of union organizations, so is it coincidence, then, that after the 2003 election, after the government was successful and the ads were successful, all of a sudden we have Bill 144, a labour bill, that comes through, that takes us from a secret ballot system for signing up, for enlisting in construction unions, for creating a new union in a company if you're in the construction business—from a secret ballot back to a card-based system? I'd love to hear the government argue that a card-based system is fairer than a secret ballot.

I would love to hear them argue that, because it's absolute BS if they try to make that argument, because it isn't. A secret ballot, and—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I'd ask the member to withdraw the unparliamentary language.

Mr. Norm Miller: I withdraw that comment that I made, gladly.

The point I was trying to make is that I don't know how you could argue that a secret ballot is not the fairest system for forming a union.

So, post the 2003 election, post the very successful third party advertising campaign funded by a union-based organization, all of a sudden we have a labour-based bill, Bill 144, coming into effect that, for the construction sector, takes us from a secret ballot back to a card-based system, which is very much open to manipulation.

I've seen the first-hand negative results of that bill in my riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka, and I would love to give some examples.

I had the pleasure of touring, a year and a half or so ago, the Red Leaves development occurring on Lake Rosseau, a huge new development, if it's built out completely, being put forward by Ken Fowler Enterprises. The development will be some $915 million, one of the biggest developments—it certainly is the biggest development in the area of Parry Sound—Muskoka.

When I toured it—I think it was a year ago, in February—when I was asking how things were going, one of the construction trades was telling me they'd run into some problems because their company, which had been a private company, non-union-based for 20 years, had suddenly become unionized, and it had become unionized based on this card-based system. The guy wasn't sure how he was going to continue to operate, especially because when he went to the union, after deciding, "Well, I guess I'm unionized; I'll play by the rules," when he went to try to get workers to complete the job, there were no workers available.

So all of a sudden, things at Red Leaves were stalled for a couple of months, based on this one company negatively affected by this bill, Bill 144, that brought in this archaic card-based system for signing up a union.

So now what do I see in a May 27

article in the local Bracebridge Examiner and Gravenhurst Banner? "Red Leaves Hotel in Receivership.

"Cost overruns for the multi-million-dollar Minett development Red Leaves have forced a portion of the lakeside resort into receivership, this newspaper has learned."

Luckily, it's not all bad news, because another company, Alvarez and Marsal, is taking over the operation of the Red Leaves Rosseau hotel component, so the hotel is going to be completed and operation is going on as normal.

So that side of it is good. I think this bill has played an absolute role in creating problems for this development. The hotel is now open. In fact, I was there for an event a couple of weeks ago. They've done a beautiful job with the Rosseau. It's the first J.W. Marriott Resort and Spa in the province, and I look forward to continued success. There are lots of other components that aren't connected with this part that have had some financial challenges. I'm sure the financial challenges are also in part because of the way the world changed last fall, and I'm sure the availability of financing has played a

part in it.

But the negative legislation that this government has brought into effect has played a role as well. I look at other situations in the riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka, again to do with the apprenticeship ratios. I was up in Shawanaga First Nation meeting with the councillor on the council of Shawanaga First Nation, north of Parry Sound, talking about lots of their plans for the First Nation.

But also, when we were just chit-chatting, I asked the councillor about his family, what his kids are doing, and he said his son wants to be an electrician but he can't get a placement; he can't find a place to develop the skills. That's the on-the-ground effect of this bad legislation that the government is passing.

So I am very suspicious about what this new college of trades bill is going to do, if it's really going to help deal in a fair way with the apprenticeship problems we've seen. I don't think anyone would disagree with the fact that we need more skilled workers and that we need to encourage that and make the trades appealing to young people in this province. I heard the member from Oshawa talking about having more trades in the schools—I would agree with that—in high school etc. There's great money to be made in the trades, for sure.

Certainly locally in Parry Sound—Muskoka, some of the community colleges are doing a great job in recognizing the need and then filling that need. I think of Georgian College president Brian Tamblyn, with whom I've had several meetings. They established a new campus in Bracebridge recently. They're trying to cater to the need they see, and one of the programs that I know they have at Georgian College in Bracebridge is a skilled carpenters program. Of course, we have a tremendous cottage industry; there are always renovations and buildings and projects going on, and there is a great need for carpenters in the area. That is an example of where the community college is filling that need.

But going back to the bad effects of their past legislation, another example that comes to mind locally that I had dealings with—I was asked to meet with a local company, a Muskoka-based company, that builds condominiums. They have done several very successful projects in Huntsville and several in Bracebridge. I won't name them. They wanted to meet with me because, after 25 years in business as a non-unionized company, they suddenly had been unionized.

I don't have all the details now, but he went through in detail how they were duped into becoming unionized by hiring some drywallers who came in on a weekend, and how through the skewed process the government now has in effect, these few workers were able to unionize the whole company, and the negative effects it was having on the company, that they might not be able to stay in business. That is the result on the ground for the negative legislation that this government is passing through this Legislature.

So we'll want to have a very detailed look at this legislation. Frankly, I am suspicious about the real reason that the government wants to bring in a college of trades. What benefit it will be to some of the groups that have supported the government in the past is what I would be looking at.

On that third party advertising situation: I know the PC Party has written to Elections Ontario on that issue, and I believe we have received legal advice and are looking at legal means to deal with it, because in this province, if there are going to be third parties out there not being contained by the rules that affect political parties and advertising in the elections—currently the PC Party has not gotten involved with that—we either have to make rules that affect them or the PC Party will have to do the same thing. We'll have to get our working families and spend millions of dollars to bash the government.

That's what will happen. If the government wants to have that happening, fine, but we would prefer not going down that road as the PC Party.

Certainly we look forward to seeing this bill—talking about it in caucus today—go to committee as well. The PC Party recognizes the value of skilled trades. We have in our caucus, I think, probably the only plumber in the Legislature in Garfield Dunlop, the member for Simcoe North. He was a plumber in his past life. I think that's a very positive thing. We certainly have—

Interjection.

Mr. Norm Miller: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for pointing out that we also have Randy Hillier, who is a licensed electrician, in the Legislature, as well, in the PC Party. I think that's a good thing.

Interjections.

Mr. Norm Miller: As the member from Durham is saying behind me, we have a lot of lawyers—maybe too many lawyers—but we need people to bring another perspective to the Legislature. The skilled trades are a group that I have the highest respect for, probably because I don't have their skills and I respect people who are able to fix a car or build something out of wood or fix the various plumbing challenges etc. I really do respect those people.

I wonder how the local plumber is going to feel when, all of a sudden, as a result of this bill, he gets a bill for $100 in the mail. He's going to open up his mail one day and he's going to see: "College of trades," "$100 I'm supposed to pay them."

Mr. John O'Toole: It will be more than $100.

Mr. Norm Miller: Yes. It may be $100 or it may be $500. We don't know.

Ron Mann, my past plumber at Patterson Kaye Lodge, is going to open up his bill and say, "College of trades? Am I going to college or what's going on here? Why am I being billed $100 for this new college?" I suspect the government might get a little bit of pushback on that as well.

We need skilled trades for the economy of this country. I think about the mining sector, where there are so many specialized trades needed for that, such a vital industry in northern Ontario. I think about the forestry sector, which has so many skilled trades. The small businesses that I was giving examples of before, whether plumbing or electrical: We need those people to run businesses and to be able to stimulate the economy and keep things going in this province. So the opposition will look forward to going through this bill with a fine-toothed comb.

I hope Mr. Wilson, our critic, is soon going to be back here—preferably before the end of the week, if he's feeling better. I wish him well and hope he is back here.

If this bill does pass through the Legislature this week, before the end of the session, then all I would ask of the government is that they make sure they have fulsome committee hearings so that all of the people who have a concern, including the local plumber and electrician who may not be part of a union, and the businesspeople who will be affected by the new rules that are created and the new bureaucracy, will have an opportunity to have some input on this bill before the government passes it through the Legislature. With that, I conclude my remarks.

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

M me France Gélinas: It was interesting to listen to the comments from my colleague there, and I agree with a few parts of what he said. We too in the NDP have issues with the some of the elements of the bill, and we too are wondering what kind of services the tradespeople will get for the type of money that they will be paying to their college. This is certainly an issue. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of tradespeople in Ontario who could be getting a bill if the college becomes a reality and wondering, "Why am I paying this money and what kind of services am I getting?" So I agree with this.

The part that I strongly disagree with is his view about card-based certification. If you look at what's happening in the home care system right now, where people are asked to work for minimum wage or slightly above minimum wage—they do not get paid for travel time. They don't get paid for time on the road. The only way those people can ever hope to have half-decent working conditions is to get organized, to get unionized so that they have a strong voice, but they are mainly women who desperately need the little bit of money that they make, and women who are afraid. I looked at all of the people in precarious employment, and it's the same thing for them.

To have a member stand in the House and say that because a group of people got organized and got unionized, which is perfectly legal in this province, led to bankruptcy—I cannot stand here and accept this. Do some employers resist unionization? I agree with him. But once the union and management have a chance to work together, they make those employers stronger, and their employees bring better working conditions.

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

Mr. Reza Moridi: I wish to thank the member from Parry Sound—Muskoka and other members who spoke on this bill yesterday.

They made comments about the notion of ratios. We all know that ratios is one of the issues that is facing the trades, and when it comes to determining the ratios, I would like to bring the attention of the member and this House to the fact that one of the two current acts, the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act, actually legislated the number of ratios for various trades. This act governs almost all trades within the construction sector, so this is not something, as the member indicated, that we can change overnight. We just cannot do that.

The other act, the Apprenticeship and Certification Act, which passed in 1998—these two acts now govern the trades, and that's why we want to modernize the profession. We want to modernize apprenticeship and the trades. That's why we are bringing this college-of-trades bill to this House, and if passed, it's going modernize and address those questions which have been raised in this House.

When it comes, again, to the question of ratios, this is not something that everybody can sit down and change. This is a technical matter, and it has to be done by technical people. That's why we have proposed in this legislation that there will be review panels, and their members are independent people drawn from experts. They are the people who are going to sit down and decide what should be the ratios between the apprentice and the journeyperson. This is a technical matter, and we can't just let it go. We need to look into this very carefully to make sure that our apprentices, once they have graduated, are the masters of their crafts.

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

Mr. John O'Toole: I listened carefully to the member from Parry Sound—Muskoka, and he made two very important and compelling arguments. One was the argument on ratios.

This idea of ratios is one of the barriers to young people getting to learn trades. The employer, whether they're unionized or not unionized, is required by the regulations to have, as he said in the case of the electricians, three journeymen for every apprentice. In fact, if it's a small company, say it's an individual who has a company and maybe a son who he has trained, that might be against the law. That's the whole point here.

There's a

section here,

part 9 of the bill—it's ratios, compulsory and voluntary trades. That's a very important meddling portion of the bill, and I think it's important that members of the Legislature actually read the legislation. I think some of them are only reading the notes they've been given, which is very surprising when we're trying to modernize an industry.

The other point he made was the argument with respect to the Working Families Coalition group. It has been suggested that they're a skills-based working group that has provided money through the membership of their unionized—mostly unionized; not always, I suppose—employees contributing to these funds. These funds aren't accountable, and it has been said that they ran very expensive advertising called the Working Families Coalition against one of the governments. I say that that's part of a different debate, but really this whole idea looks like it's payback by having a college of trades.

That college of trades is going to put a tax on every skilled tradesperson in this province: $100 to maybe $500 a month or a year—who knows?—on a job.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): We have time for one last question or comment.

Mr. Bill Mauro: I'm pleased to comment on the speech from the member from Parry Sound—Muskoka.

I wanted to begin first, though, by recognizing the member from Nickel Belt and the graduation of her daughter from the industrial electrician program. It reminded me that, I think two or three years ago, the Minister of Education brought in a program, and I believe it's now part of the Ontario curriculum, although I stand to be corrected. We brought in women in the skilled trades program. I remember being at an announcement at Pope John Paul II high school in Thunder Bay two or three years ago, when it was called by a different name.

At that time I was there with the Minister of Education, and we were announcing specialty programs within the trades within the high school curriculum. I believe there was a component in there that spoke to engaging more women, especially at the high school level, to get them interested in trades as well. That comment from the member from Nickel Belt reminded me of that particular story.

The building trades sector is extremely important, and unfortunately, the member's speech seemed to dismiss out of hand what the college of trades has the potential to do. If there's one thing that I think it can do and hopefully will be successful in doing, it's elevating the status of building trades in the province of Ontario.

I come from the riding of Thunder Bay—Atikokan. Thunder Bay has an incredible reputation. I had an opportunity to speak on this yesterday when it comes to skilled building trades and spoke about a young gentleman named Kent Wicklund, who just won a national competition from the Sheet Metal Workers Union Local 397 in Thunder Bay, where he continues to enhance the reputation that Thunder Bay has. If there's one thing that this college can do, it will be to enhance and raise the profile of building trades in the province of Ontario.

We're all aware of the demographics when it comes to this particular realm of professions in Ontario, and hopefully, the college will be able to raise the level and profile in this industry.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I will return to the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, who has two minutes to reply.

Mr. Norm Miller: Thank you to the members from Nickel Belt, Richmond Hill, Durham and Thunder Bay—Atikokan for their comments.

The member from Durham brought up a good example of a one-person operation. I think again back to my past plumber from many years at the resort, my past business, Ron Mann, a single guy working as a plumber. How does he bring an apprentice on? One guy: He can't, under the current rule, and that's an excellent point. The member from Richmond Hill talked about the ratios being in legislation—I'm sure the PC Party would give you unanimous consent this afternoon to change the ratios very quickly.

I would like to highlight some other concerns that have been brought forward in an

article on skills training by Vince Versace to do with the proposed Ontario College of Trades. I'll read from the article:

"The Merit Open Shop Contractors Association of Ontario (MOCAO) says the college will create a large, costly and unneeded bureaucracy it believes is 'designed to please the building trades' in the areas of both ratio and compulsory trade applications review and enforcement.

"The Ontario Road Builders' Association (ORBA) also has concerns about the college appointment council's powers and makeup.

"The roles of the complaints and disciplines committees also need to be looked at to help reduce potential 'fishing expeditions' as it concerns company complaints."

"The Council of Ontario Construction Associations (COCA) has highlighted five areas of concern which include the 'complexity of the college's organization structure,' the need for and power of a recommended appointments council, the process to determine ratios and trade status, cost of establishing and maintaining the college and the role of employer representatives."

There are lots of questions from interested parties out there. That's why, after we have a chance to caucus this, after we finish the second reading debate, we'll look forward to plenty of input from stakeholders as this bill goes to committee and hopefully gets input from those small businesses, the small electricians, plumbers and other skilled trades, as well as union-based organizations.

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

M me France Gélinas: It is my pleasure to add a few comments to Bill 183, the Ontario College of Trades and Apprenticeship Act, during second reading.

First, the NDP supports an arm's-length body to streamline approvals of industry recommendations regarding the compulsory trades, journeyperson ratios, curriculum and other matters. However, it is not clear that the new structure will do this, or whether the new college's cumbersome structure will merely substitute one bureaucratic barrier for another one, newly created. It is also not clear what the province's apprentices and journeypersons will get from their membership fees in the college. I think this is a trend that we have heard quite a bit this morning.

Basically, Ontario's apprenticeship system provides future skills for industry and the economy and supports the province to better compete in the global economy by ensuring that an adequate supply of skilled workers is available. Apprenticeship training is a cost-effective and efficient method of training for industry: 90% to 95% of apprenticeship training is done on the job.

The success of apprenticeship as a training program is dependent on its unique combination of workplace and academic education. The time-based workplace component of apprenticeship training is essential in that the apprentices must have an adequate period to learn from the journeyperson. In-school training must support what is being learned, practised and thought in the workplace.

Apprenticeship training must be more widely used as a mechanism to promote entry for new workers to the labour force, re-entry for workers returning to the labour force and transition for those who are already in the labour force. Apprenticeship training must be promoted more effectively in the school system in order to provide opportunities for students not going on to post-secondary education in an era of such high youth unemployment.

Apprenticeship training must be accessible to all. Marketing and education initiatives must be expanded to ensure that existing women, aboriginal and visible minority employees are recognized as potential apprentices by current and future employers. As I've just mentioned, I attended my daughter's graduation on Friday. She graduated as an industrial electrician. There were 39—I would call them kids, but I guess, young people in her class—graduating, but only two women: my daughter and her friend Shannon. The rest of them were still all guys. It's time to bring a balance.

I think the trades would benefit if there was a 50-50 balance, very much like this House would benefit if we had a 50-50 balance between men and women.

Under the Mike Harris government, the apprenticeship system in Ontario was split in two by placing industrial trades in a new act and leaving construction trades under the old Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act, the TQAA. These actions deregulated the system and shifted the focus from apprenticeship as an employment relationship to apprenticeship as an education and training relationship. It removed the enforcement of the regulatory provisions that regulated ratio and wage rates and removed entry levels and duration from this legislation.

The NDP strongly believes that skill sets must not replace whole trades. While there must be flexibility to recognize genuine new trades as technology changes, this must not be an excuse to fragment existing trades into partial components, or skill sets, which are then treated as new trades in themselves. The Harris changes redefined the work of specific trades to that of simple skill sets, which resulted in an increase in multi-crafting and multi-skilling and a further fragmentation of existing trades.

This splintering of the trades compromises the health and safety of workers as well as consumer safety and environmental protection. It is leading to a generation of workers who lack an understanding of their complete trade and an overall deskilling of Ontario's workforce, the complete opposite of where we should be going.

Compulsory certification must be significantly expanded after re-establishing whole trades, not just skill sets. Employer-established, non-regulated "designer trades" must come under regulation through the established apprenticeship training programs. With that as a starting point, over time the NDP believe the entire system should move toward compulsory certification for most trades. Compulsory certification will ensure increased flexibility and mobility, as well as higher standards, higher skill levels, higher-quality training, and increased confidence in the apprenticeship system. Compulsory certification will also help ensure public safety and consumer protection.

I want to talk a little bit about enforcement mechanisms. Those mechanisms must be legislated to ensure compliance with compulsory certification regulations by both employers and individuals, and fines for violating the act must be increased to significant levels so that people take those enforcement mechanisms seriously. The enforcement mechanisms must have clout, and penalties must be strictly enforced. Otherwise, it's all for nothing.

Another point is wage requirements. Wage requirements must be re-established, and tuition fees for apprenticeship programs must be abolished. The Harris government deregulated wage requirements for apprentices, and the government is now introducing tuition fees for apprenticeship programs. Both of these moves downloaded the costs of training to the individual and act as a deterrent to potential new apprentices entering the trades.

We have to talk about the lack of tradespeople. About five years ago, my husband and I built a new home. With my husband, as I've already said, being an electrician, we decided to do the general contracting ourselves. Let me tell you that all of the tradespeople who worked on our house were, to use a friendly term, aged. Our framer was Lucien Rheault. Lucien was 64 years old when he framed our house. He had been a framer since he was a boy of 16, and framed 10 new houses in the Sudbury area every summer. He's very experienced. He was excellent to work with, but did you notice—64 years old.

We asked, "Do you have an apprentice with you?" He said, "I used to have apprentices with me, but I cannot find any." It was not through a lack of goodwill on his part; it was because there are so many barriers for young people to come and work. The list goes on.

The bricklayer who came was in his 60s. The roofer was actually in his 70s. He was a small man, smaller than me, who could carry three bundles of shingles on his shoulder, climb up the ladder to do the roofing, and then would come back down the stairs facing out, not even holding onto the stairs. This man had been a roofer all his life. He certainly showed the marks of his trade. But same with him: He was working alone.

When I asked him why he didn't have an apprentice with him, his answer was the same: "I used to have young apprentices with me." He certainly was willing and able to have young people come and apprentice with him, but there was nobody there who was interested in learning his trade. So here he was; I think he was 74—I forget his exact age—and still doing roofing, doing a very good job of it. The man was very fit. But he couldn't find somebody else to take on his business and to continue.

The only two trades who were not over 60 years of age were my husband, who did the electrical work, and a friend of ours, Doug, who is a plumber. The rest of the trades, whether it was the drywaller, the plasterer, the cabinetmaker etc., were all aged men—very fit, very competent, very good tradespeople, but people who had been in the trades for a long time, loved what they did, but couldn't find young tradesmen. I realize that this has mainly to do with the construction trade, but it extends to other trades as well.

Let me talk a little bit about the provincial advisory committees. They must be established for all trades and must be mandated with more responsibility and authority. At present in Ontario, the provincial advisory committees exist for regulated trades only, and they are strictly advisory in nature. The committees should provide more input on training, intake, standards and education requirements, while governments should retain a role in promotion, licensing, programming and, of course, enforcement.

The school-to-work and pre-apprenticeship programs must be designed to adhere to the ratios and standards set out by the provincial advisory committee. The red seal program must be expanded. The provincial government must be part of a move to expand and enforce the red seal program to provide for national standards based on industry—that is, employers' and employees'—needs for all occupations identified as suitable for the apprenticeship training model. These standards must cover all aspects of training, including on-the-job and in-school training, qualifications, examinations and certification.

I wanted to talk about the college of trades act. If passed, this legislation would establish a regulatory college that is designed to modernize the province's apprenticeship and skilled trades system. The new college would also encourage more people to work in the trades and help the system better serve employers, skilled tradespeople, apprentices and, at the end of it all, the consumers as well. Among the many duties of the college outlined in the bill are review of the compulsory trade application, review of the apprentice ratio, enforcement of apprenticeship standards, and discipline.

The legislation creates a powerful appointment council comprised of eight members and a chair who are appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. The appointment council is essentially in place to make appointments of all members of the various elements of the college governance structure, which includes the board of governors, the divisional board and trade board—so three levels. It is also responsible for appointing individuals who can be neutral and impartial to a roster of adjudicators.

It is proposed in the bill that the college's board of governors would be comprised of 21 members, four from each of the construction, motive power, industrial and service sectors, with two of the members in each sector selected as employee representatives and two as employer representatives, and five selected as representing the public. The chair of the board would then be selected by the board.

The bill also proposes that there will be a divisional board for each of the four sectors to advise the boards on issues relating to the trades within their respective sectors. The divisional board will be comprised of five members, two employee representatives, two employer representatives from the sector and one of the four members of the board of governors from that sector, and that person will be the chair. Advising the divisional board for each sector is a trade board made up of two employees' and two employers' representatives from the sector and appointed by the council.

The board of governors is empowered in the bill to establish an executive committee, registration committee, complaints committee, discipline committee, fitness-to-practise committee, and to appoint the members and chairs of those committees. These latter three committees very generally consider and investigate written complaints of various types that are logged against the college members.

Under the provisions of the bill, the board of governors may from time to time establish review panels to make determinations on journeyperson-to-apprentice ratios and on classification of trades as compulsory trades or voluntary trades. All three members of a review panel must be selected from the roster of adjudicators as follows: one member selected by the board of governors and two members selected by the divisional trade board for the sector to which the trade belongs. Decisions of a review panel are final and not subject to appeal—which is also something that always kind of raises a red flag.

There are two classes of college membership described in the bill: journeyperson, and persons who employ journeypersons or who sponsor or employ apprentices. The process for annual membership fees will be detailed in the college bylaw.

The Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities retains some apprenticeship responsibility, including approving and funding training providers. The ministry would also continue to perform operational duties such as registering training agreements for apprenticeships and conducting certification exams. Also, the government would continue to administer programs such as the Ontario youth apprenticeship program and the apprenticeship training tax credit.

I want to come back to the government's responsibility for approving and funding training providers.

In Sudbury, the city where I live, we have two colleges, Collège Boréal and Cambrian College. Collège Boréal is a fairly new college. It's a French-language college that recently celebrated its 10th anniversary.

If you look at the programs that the college offers, they are top-notch. They always produce top-notch graduates, and the people who employ them are truly satisfied. Every year, the college wins significant awards for the programs that they offer and the graduates that come forward.

I was, and they were, extremely disappointed when, last week, announcements were made as to the investment in infrastructure. They had asked for $24 million to allow them to build the facility for those 10 new trade schools, which would give access to about 700 new tradespeople a year who want to come to Collège Boréal and learn trades. Unfortunately, they did not receive funding. They received $5 million from the provincial government, for which they are grateful, but they have received nothing from the federal government.

The need for trades programs for the francophone community is huge. There is a historical liking on the part of the francophone population for learning a trade and to earn a living as a tradesperson. Unfortunately, the opportunity to be trained in the French language is very limited. The opportunity was there for Collège Boréal, which is fully capable of teaching those 10 new trades, but unfortunately, it never got funded.

Très peu de financement, en fait, est venu pour les institutions postsecondaires dans le nord de l'Ontario. Il y a un peu d'argent qui est allé au collège Cambrian mais très peu pour le Collège Boréal, qui malheureusement ne sera pas capable d'ouvrir ces nouveaux programmes. C'est vraiment dommage.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): It being very close to 10:15, I shall now recess the House, and we'll reconvene at 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Robert Bailey: I'd like to introduce three guests in the west members' gallery: Melissa Chopcian, who won the best in Canada in the junior category science fair, accompanied by her brother Christopher, who won fourth in electrical engineering at the International in Reno, Nevada. Also with them is their father, Michael, who is very proud to be with them here today.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I'd like to welcome the guests here from London in the west gallery. They are grandparents of page Jacob Squire: Peter Vantol, Marianne Vantol, Harry Lindström, Ken Squire, Hilda Squire and Phil Squire.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I'd like to introduce Richard Fogarty in the opposition galleries, who's spending some time at Queen's Park learning about all the failings of the Liberal government.

Mr. Paul Miller: I would like to welcome to the Legislature today Maryam Nazeemee and the injured workers who spent the night in vigil here to raise awareness of their plight.

Also, I would like to introduce a family friend, Wendy Hickey, and my wife, Carole, who are sitting in the members' gallery.

Hon. George Smitherman: I hope that members will join with me in welcoming the leadership of the Electricity Distributors Association. They remind you of their event in the legislative dining room from 5 to 7:30. We have Charlie Macaluso, the president; John Loucks, the chair; and Michael Angemeer and Brian Bentz, who are board members. Welcome, the EDA.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I would like to welcome my husband, Germinio Pio Politi, to the Legislature here today to celebrate Italian Republic Day with all the members of caucus.

Mr. Bruce Crozier: It's a pleasure for me today to introduce two friends from the great riding of Essex, they being Elean and Jim Krushelniski. I want to say that Elean was my first constituency assistant, who had worked for Remo Mancini, my predecessor, and she taught me what I had to know as a rookie MPP. Welcome.

Hon. John Wilkinson: On behalf of my friend the Minister of the Environment and myself, we are both delighted that young people from Ontario who competed in the Canada-Wide Science Fair are visiting Queen's Park today. There will be a reception for our constituents in the Macdonald Block this afternoon. We hope the members will be able to attend.

Mr. Reza Moridi: I would like to welcome Adelina Cozma, from my riding of Richmond Hill. She is one of the winners of the Ontario science fair, and she has gone to represent Ontario in the Canada-Wide Science Fair. She was also a page at this House just recently. Welcome to the House.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It is my pleasure to welcome to the House today the family of page Jacob Squire from the great riding of London North—Centre.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the member from St. Paul's and page Carlyn Mandarano Sistilli, we'd like to welcome her mother, Donna, and her brother, Kristian, sitting in the members' gallery today. Welcome.

On behalf of the member from Timmins—James Bay and page Kathleen Crump, we'd like to welcome her grandmother, Linda Burke, sitting in the public gallery today.

On behalf of the member from Beaches—East York and page Sam Beleutz, we'd like to welcome her mother, Johanna Carlo, to the Legislature today.

I'd also like to welcome two friends of mine who are seated in the Speaker's gallery: Andy Cottrell and Patrick Hunter. Welcome to Queen's Park, gentlemen.

MEMBER'S BIRTHDAY

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I just want to acknowledge that it's MPP Johnson's 55th birthday today. Happy birthday to Rick Johnson.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Minister of Health. The press release, Minister, issued by eHealth yesterday regarding the PricewaterhouseCoopers review—what you call a third party independent review—is quite a read.

Minister, are you not aware of the fact that the eHealth board of directors already has an approved policy on expenses, as well as an approved policy on procurement, and that those policies were endorsed by PricewaterhouseCoopers just a few months ago?

Hon. David Caplan: I can inform the member that, in fact, in March of this year, cabinet approved a memorandum of understanding with the eHealth board, as is customary with agencies. As well, they do have a revised policy as of April this year.

What's important to remember is that the members of the board of eHealth were directed to take on a third party review in light of some of the expenditures which have come forward. There will be an additional layer of oversight as well with the auditor's review.

I think that PricewaterhouseCoopers is a well-known and well-respected accounting firm. It's one of the world's recognized firms to do this kind of work. I look forward to the recommendations and insights they might have on ways in which we can strengthen the financial controls and the management practices at eHealth.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: "Party review" is nothing more than a punchline for a bad joke at taxpayers' expense. They already have conducted a review—just completed a few months ago—and they endorsed the programs that were in place.

What is happening here is really a sham exercise designed to really hide what has happened with respect to this agency. The policies already exist; the Liberal appointees made a conscious decision to ignore them. There are rules in place, and now you are, I think, in some respects, playing Ontarians like fools by suggesting you're going to have this agency that just finished a review a couple of months ago come back and conduct another review.

Minister, the buck really stops with you. If you had one ounce of courage or an interest in ensuring that tax dollars were spent appropriately, you'd do the right thing and fire Ms. Kramer.

Hon. David Caplan: I do acknowledge that the investments in eHealth are significant. I think that, especially when you look and compare south of the border, as I've mentioned in this House before—President Obama has embarked on an e-health project—some $50 billion over the course of five years. The investments in Ontario are no less staggering as far as the amount of resources into this area.

I will say that I believe that the current leadership to date has yielded good results and is on track to reach our goals of a modernized health care system. They have already moved forward on requests for expression of interest and are moving to requests for qualifications and further proposals on the diabetes registry. They have begun a pilot project related to e-Prescribing, a very important project to link pharmacists with primary care physicians that has begun in two communities, in Collingwood and Sault Ste. Marie, and we look forward to driving that forward. They are moving forward—

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: This minister has a track record of asleep-at-the-switch oversight. We saw it with the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. in his earlier portfolio. Not only has this minister allowed the eHealth chair and the CEO to ignore this report, but they made a mockery of policies on expenses.

You're forcing taxpayers, who are losing their jobs, to pay consultants for $15 cocktails and $300 an hour for reading a newspaper on the subway. It's laughable to think that this time they're going to follow the rules—they've ignored them up to this point.

Minister, the CEO and the chair need to go, and clearly, you need to go. When is it going to happen?

Hon. David Caplan: I've certainly shared my concerns with the House, and I know the Premier has as well, regarding some of the expenses which have been disclosed by the CEO and the chair. However, although there are costs of business—I think we all understand that—it is important that taxpayer dollars are respected and treated responsibly. That is important not just for eHealth, but I think it's a cautionary and important message for all members of this Legislature and every one of us who has the privilege to serve Ontarians.

That's why I took the step to direct the board of eHealth Ontario to bring in third party independent oversight. That's why, later today, I will be speaking with Mr. McCarter, the Auditor General of the province of Ontario, an independent officer of this Legislature, one who has done a thorough job, one who has done excellent work on behalf of Ontarians. I look forward to both of those reviews for what they will yield in ensuring that we, in fact—

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

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Premier on his out-of-control eHealth agency and the Liberal appointees in charge. Premier, in a press scrum this morning, when you were asked about the misuse of tax dollars at eHealth, you said, "I don't think they've technically done anything wrong." Premier, what you are telling the hard-pressed taxpayers, when hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost in this province, when you are running record deficits, is that it's technically okay to use tax dollars for a $15 cocktail, or when you are being paid $2,700 a day to bill for $1.50 cup of tea. Is that really your position, or were you misquoted?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think that one of the things I was trying to make clear today, as I have in the past and I think my minister has been doing as well, is that we can and must do better here. I think we've done a fairly good job as a government to protect taxpayer dollars as we've handled those through the public system, through the ministries and the bureaucracy. Now what we've got to do is make sure that when we hire the private sector, we ensure that their use of public dollars is just as careful as the practices that we've adopted in government.

We need to take a look at those rules and I think that we can improve upon those rules, hence the requisition for a third party overview. We're looking forward to the advice of the auditor as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: The Premier has tried to avoid answering questions on this issue—I should say "responding," since he rarely answers anything. He has responsibility for this agency's arrogance and contempt for taxpayers. It falls right on his doorstep. I'm told the Premier personally interviewed the CEO, Ms. Kramer, before her appointment. This is someone who gave herself a $114,000 bonus after three months on the job, gave out millions of tax dollars in untendered contracts and, in the middle of this spending controversy, arrogantly spent another $27,000 for a cocktail party in Quebec City.

Premier, this is your Liberal appointee. She's rubbing it in the face of taxpayers. Do you accept any degree of responsibility?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I've said to my honourable colleague that I think we can and should draw some lessons from what has taken place here. There are some expenditures which ought not to have been accepted and I don't believe were justifiable. But we need to get the best advice from PricewaterhouseCoopers and the best advice from the auditor, and then, on the basis of those recommendations, see what we might do to ensure that this does not happen again.

I think, in fairness to the folks who have taken responsibility over at eHealth for the management there, they have, in fact, played by the rules. But the responsibility—and I agree with my colleague in this regard—does fall to us now to take a look at this experience and see what we might need to do to tighten up those rules. We've got to make sure that the rules that apply to the private sector when it comes to spending public dollars are just as rigorous and just as careful as the rules that apply to the public sector, here in government, as we deal with public dollars.

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Words are great; action is overdue. What's happening here, along with your minister's defence of the indefensible and your attempt to trivialize a blatant and outrageous abuse of scarce tax dollars, is a clear indication of the growth of a culture of entitlement in this Liberal majority government that's infecting its agencies. That's what's happening here. We see it at TVO, at Ontario Lottery and Gaming and now at eHealth. Premier, if you're sincere about coming to grips with this challenge, fire Ms. Kramer and demote Mr. Caplan. They deserve it. Will you do it?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, there are some parts of the concerns that my honourable colleague has raised with which I agree, but his solution is not something that I can accept.

I think, in fairness to the folks that are in charge at eHealth, they have been playing by the rules that have been in place. What we need to do is to take a look at those rules. I believe that some of them have been too lax. I think we need to wait for the report coming from PricewaterhouseCoopers. We need to wait for the information and the advice to come from the auditor. We then need to make changes to those rules, and I think that those changes may, as well, have some applications to some of our other agencies when it comes to hiring on the private sector and their use of public dollars.

We've got to ensure that we are rigorous and careful with public dollars, whether they're being spent by the private sector through consultants or internally through government in our ministries.

PENSION PLANS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Today, New Democrats are launching our Pensions for All campaign. The campaign is urgently needed because only one third of Ontarians have workplace pensions, and even some of those are in dire jeopardy.

New Democrats believe that now is the time for an Ontario pension plan. Other provinces are already moving on this, creating their own pension plans. The government's own Arthurs commission also soundly endorses this idea for Ontario.

My question is this: What is the McGuinty government prepared to do for the two thirds of Ontarians who have no pension plan and who face a retirement without dignity and without security?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague has raised this issue with me before, and I completely agree with the need for us to do something. I'm not prepared to accept, right at this point in time, that the province of Ontario should take this on on its own. You will know that I've put a request before the Prime Minister—I've raised this with him personally on at least three occasions now—that we host a national summit. This pension issue affects all Canadians right across the country, and I think that a national challenge calls for a national solution.

I know that some of my colleagues, my counterparts in other provinces, have made the same requests of the Prime Minister, and I believe it's the kind of thing that we will take up at the Council of the Federation meeting this summer, when all the Premiers come together, to see where we might go together. But it's such a large issue that my instincts are telling me that it would be best addressed by the country as a whole, in the same way that we move forward with medicare and employment—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontario is facing a pension crisis, and all the Premier can do is punt the issue over to Ottawa. This government has jurisdiction over 85% of Ontario's workplaces, but it's clear it is doing nothing to provide pension coverage to the two thirds of Ontarians who presently lack it. New Democrats believe that every worker in this province should be covered by a workplace pension plan.

Rather than pass the buck to the federal government, why won't the McGuinty government support the creation of an Ontario pension plan so that all Ontarians can retire with dignity and security?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I support the sentiment expressed by my honourable colleague, but I think that the problem is so huge that it calls for the best minds in Canada.

One of the things that I would recommend to the Prime Minister is that we might pull together not only a summit, but put together a blue-ribbon panel, with recommendations from some of the provinces and territories, and take a look at how we might put into place something new, the first of its kind, modelled broadly along the lines of our health care plan—medicare—and broadly along the lines of employment insurance, notwithstanding its challenges, that speaks to a new program that ensures that all Canadians, from coast to coast to coast, can, in their retirement years, enjoy a decent standard of living.

I don't think that's the kind of thing that we ought to approach on a province-by-province basis.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontario's pension system is in shambles, and all this Premier can do is ramble on about Ottawa hopefully riding to the rescue.

Pension coverage is now less than 25% in the private sector, and the provincial government has jurisdiction over the vast majority of these private sector workplaces. This government has been in power for almost six years, yet it refuses to take responsibility for a problem that has grown on its watch. Why is the government continuing to reject an Ontario pension plan that would help ensure financial security for all Ontarians?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Just to make it perfectly clear: It's not about handing this off to Ottawa; it's handing it off to all of us. I think that we're at our best when we approach these kinds of major challenges together.

Now, in fairness to us as well, we were the first to commission a report. We have received that report. We have acted on the Arthurs report. We have adopted some recommendations already. But we think that the next leap forward ought to be a quantum leap. It ought to speak to the next generation and the burden we're about to place on them unless we take greater responsibility for our own retirement years.

Again, I continue to maintain—and we'll talk about this at the Council of the Federation meeting in the summer with all the Premiers—that we've got to find some way to come to grips with this nationally, through all the provinces and through the federal government, acting together.

DRIVE CLEAN

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I think that New Democrats would agree that we need a quantum leap, but we need an Ontario pension plan; that's the quantum leap we need.

My next question, though, is to the Premier as well. The Hamilton Spectator reported today that as many as 500 of the government's Drive Clean emission-testing units do not function properly. Leading North American expert Michael St. Denis has tested a sample of the ESP-made model and found that they failed to operate correctly eight out of nine times. The government was sent the report on May 3, yet last Thursday, the Minister of the Environment claimed that the Drive Clean program was working well.

What action has this government taken to date in response to this report that shows the embarrassing deficiency of Drive Clean testing units?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know that issues have been raised in the past in this House when it comes to Drive Clean facilities and their operations, and I want to assure and reassure Ontarians on a number of fronts.

First of all, audits of all Drive Clean facilities are performed at least once per year. More than 50,000 audits have been performed so far on over 1,700 light-duty-vehicle Drive Clean facilities.

We understand that it's really important that Ontarians have confidence in the Drive Clean operations, that they respect the integrity of the process and that they're getting good value for their money. I want to reassure them that we continue to audit these facilities and act on the basis of any information that we receive.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontarians have paid for 26 million Drive Clean tests over the past 10 years. The McGuinty government has known for years that the testing units are not functioning properly. In 2007, the government asked Michael St. Denis to help them show the public that these units in fact worked, but it abandoned the plan when Mr. St. Denis told them that the units in fact would likely fail. Why haven't you inspected and tested all ESP units being used in the Drive Clean program?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I understand that there is a matter before the courts on this very subject, and everybody in this House knows why I can't speak to that. But I can say that Ontario requires something called California BAR-97-certified equipment to be modified and then undergo Ontario's own acceptance testing procedures. I can say that ministry staff have conducted a review of the concerns raised and consulted with industry experts, and we are confident that the equipment used in Ontario meets stringent requirements and provides consistent and accurate results. All equipment used in the Drive Clean program has passed, and must pass, a rigorous approval process.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: A statistical review is not the same as testing the units themselves for their effectiveness. Taxpayers have poured $650 million of hard-earned money into a Drive Clean program that is simply a mess. An independent audit shows that ESP units are failing 89% of the time. Supposedly-certified testing units have uncertified parts. ESP testing units that the government claims meet California standards in fact do not.

Why won't the government agree now to order a full and independent audit of all testing units in the Drive Clean program?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know that concerns have been raised, but again I want to reassure Ontario families that we are doing everything that we can to make sure that the equipment is functioning properly and that Ontario drivers are getting good value for their money.

Audits of all Drive Clean facilities are performed at least, as I said, once a year. More than 50,000 audits have been performed on over 1,700 light-duty-vehicle Drive Clean facilities. Drivers only pay when an accurate result is produced. There is continuous monitoring by the equipment during every single Drive Clean test. So we continue to have confidence in the Drive Clean operation and in particular in the equipment that is being used to produce the results.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is to the Premier. The exposé of the excessive spending at eHealth has had an impact. First of all, many health stakeholders now know that the little secret on University Avenue has been exposed. However, I can tell you that taxpayers are absolutely outraged. They are outraged because you have, in your cabinet, a minister who travels from one portfolio to another and demonstrates in each instance incompetence and absolutely no oversight. Not once has this minister stood up and condemned the excessive, outrageous spending at eHealth. Are you prepared to fire that minister?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Let me be very direct: No, I'm not prepared to do that. But again, in fairness to the minister and in fairness to the response that our government has brought to these facts, we believe that we can do better. We believe that some things have happened under rules which were in place, in fairness to the folks who run eHealth, that we ought to change. That's why we've asked for a third party review, that's why we look forward to the recommendations of the auditor, and, on the basis of that information, we will act.

Again, we've got to make sure that the private sector's use of public dollars is just as careful as the public sector's use of public dollars has been. I think we've demonstrated that as a government; we've been very careful in our use of public dollars. We've got to make sure that those kinds of rules now apply to the private sector use of public dollars.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: It's a sad day for taxpayers in the province of Ontario when the Premier smiles about the excessive, outrageous abuse of taxpayer dollars—

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Fifteen-dollar cocktails.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: —$15 cocktails and millions of dollars going to consultants. Then we have the Minister of Health laughing as well. It's no laughing matter, I can tell you. You have been exposed, and the health stakeholders, I can tell you, are pretty happy that the dirty little secret is out.

It's now up to you to assume some responsibility at a time when people throughout the province are suffering and are trying to make ends meet. It is time for this minister, who moves from one portfolio to the other and exercises no remorse and no oversight, to resign. Will you fire him?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think I answered that question pretty clearly the first time around. But what I can say is—and I don't want folks to lose sight of this. The opposition has raised a legitimate issue and we have a responsibility to contend with that, and we've put a process in place to get that done.

But I want to remind Ontarians of just why it's so important that we continue to move ahead as quickly as we can to put in place electronic health records. My colleague has made reference to the fact that the Obama administration is moving quickly on this front. We want to do this because we want to modernize our health care system. We want to find a way to make it more efficient. We want to eliminate waste. We want to avoid duplication. We want to bring better-quality health care to Ontario families. That's why we're moving on this.

At the same time, as we move, we have to be careful with taxpayer dollars. We've got to make sure we're as careful when the private sector uses those dollars, just as we are careful when the public sector uses those dollars.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. The minister is desperately trying to evade the disaster that is eHealth Ontario, both the flagrant waste of taxpayer money and the reality that Ontario still does not have a functioning electronic health medical record. Yesterday, the minister called for a third party review of eHealth, a review to be handed out to a private consulting company and a review that has, in effect, already been completed.

The minister continues to ignore reality. When will he finally admit and commit to real action to fix the disaster that is eHealth Ontario?

Hon. David Caplan: I think members can sometimes get a little bit carried away with their rhetoric, and that's clearly the case here. In fact, eHealth is an important undertaking. It's a major priority of this government. I think the leadership of eHealth has already yielded, in a few short months, some very good results.

I've had a chance to speak to the member about eCHN, which has been in place now celebrating 10 years for electronic health records for children. We in fact are working and driving forward on electronic health records, part of the diabetes registry. As we had committed to the people of Ontario back in 2007, we are on track to deliver eHealth records, electronic health records, by 2015. I truly believe we can do it faster. It's very important.

The member says "some third party consultants." PricewaterhouseCoopers is one of the world's foremost experts—

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

M me France Gélinas: The words that I have been waiting for this minister to say start with "I will do," and then you fill in the blank. I want to know what you will do. Ontarians are waiting for this minister to take charge and take real action.

The cards are on the table; the facts are clear and you've heard them all: from the nightcaps, to the square, to the cup of coffee, to the $2,700-a-day fees. We all know it. Yet he prefers to launch another costly consultant review that is really more of a public relations exercise than anything else.

If this minister is not prepared to take this issue seriously, then he only has one choice: He has to step aside. Will he end the charade and end it today?

Hon. David Caplan: I'm going to do what Ontarians expect, which is to modernize our health care system, which is to drive forward to put the important eHealth infrastructure in place.

Regrettably, when it was set up in 2002, Smart Systems for Health Agency was given the incorrect mandate. My predecessor called for an operational review of that agency. The operational review said that we really had to start from scratch, and that's what we've done. But in a few short months, we have already seen and yielded very good results, which makes me believe that we are on track to deliver the eHealth infrastructure which will modernize our health care system, bring professionals together, and we'll have a safer health care system.

I have, on several occasions, in this House and outside, said that I have concerns about the revelations on expenses, which is why I have called for a third party to come in to review management practice, to come and involve—

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

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr. David Ramsay: I have a question for the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure. As the minister is aware, on November 20 of last year I introduced

An Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 with respect to retailers of electricity and gas marketers. The minister is also aware that I brought this bill forward out of my concern for some of the most vulnerable people in my riding really being exploited by unsavoury retailers at the door, misrepresenting and coercing people into contracts that they could ill afford.

I've had hundreds of complaints about the behaviour at the door, and I'm asking the minister today what our government is going to be doing to rectify this situation.

Hon. George Smitherman: I want to thank the honourable member from Timiskaming—Cochrane and in fact so many members in this Legislature who, in one form or another, through their votes and sometimes through their correspondence, have expressed concerns about the practices of energy retailers in the province of Ontario. The government shares that concern, and we think that it's crucial that consumer protection be more a cornerstone of our energy policy.

Accordingly, it's the government's intention to work on policy that we would bring forward in the form of legislation this fall: a bill designed to further protect consumers from door-to-door salespeople who sometimes use questionable practices to sell fixed-price contracts for natural gas and for electricity. We applaud that the Ontario Energy Board has been active in this area and recently has fined some marketing organizations and retailers, but at the heart of it we recognize an opportunity to enhance the consumer protections, and that's why we'll be bringing forward a bill this fall.

We thank the honourable member for his leadership in this area.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My constituents are also concerned about this matter, and I'm glad to hear that the government will not tolerate predatory sales practices by energy retailers.

As you know, I represent an urban riding, and as such, another concern my residents have is with sub-metering in high-rise residential buildings. It is estimated that 500,000 households live in high-rise buildings across the province, most of which include electricity in their rent. Sub-metering has been identified as a key component of establishing a culture of conservation in Ontario where our residents will be aware of and accountable for their energy usage.

However, Minister, in March, the Ontario Energy Board issued a compliance bulletin requiring all sub-metering activities in this sector to end as a response to concerns raised by some tenants. Minister, what is the government doing to protect these consumers as we encourage them to participate in the culture of conservation?

Hon. George Smitherman: The honourable member represents a riding not dissimilar to mine, in some sense, which has a lot of tenants. In many, many circumstances in the province, our tenants are all in buildings with one main meter. As we move towards sub-metering in those units, we want to ensure that tenants are appropriately protected. As an example, where electricity is embedded in the rent and you seek to pull those apart, we want to make sure that the appropriate amount of electricity cost is apportioned to the tenants.

We're looking at how we can, in the context of consumer protections, enhance those protections related to the initiative on sub-metering. It's a very crucial strategy for energy conservation. We think it's important that people know how much electricity they're using, but we also think it's critically important that the rules guiding that be designed in a fashion which offers all appropriate protection for tenants and consumers in the province of Ontario.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is back to the Premier—a question I asked him earlier and he danced around without answering. I think it's important for taxpayers. We just heard yesterday about a record deficit in this province—another record deficit from this Liberal government. He said that in terms of the waste and abuse of tax dollars at his agency, under the direction of his Liberal appointee, he was quoted as saying, "I don't think they've technically done anything wrong." So I'm going to ask him a very specific question.

An individual hired by this agency, being paid 2,700 tax dollars per day, goes out and spends $15 a night and bills the taxpayers for a cocktail—a nightcap. Is that technically okay according to the Liberal government?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. David Caplan: I think both the Premier and I have been very clear that while rules are in place and have been followed, it's not simply a question of whether things can be done, but rather whether things should be done. That's precisely why I've called the board chair seeking reassurances and that's particularly why I've instructed the board to take on a third party review of the agency, its management practices and its financials. We think that's very important for the protection of taxpayers. If things can be improved, we do believe they should be improved.

In addition to that, I would advise the member opposite that the Auditor General, an independent officer of this Legislature, is in there. I will be speaking with Mr. McCarter this afternoon. He has returned from overseas, and I do look forward—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: This whole thing reeks; it really reeks. We have this minister getting up, we talk about $15 cocktails and the taxpayers are forced to pay for it—$1.50 for a cup of coffee when they're being paid $60,000 a month from the taxpayers, and this minister gets up day after day and does not condemn that kind of abuse of scarce tax dollars. Something is really wrong here. I have to say, this is a brazen, brazen attitude with respect to not just the officials at eHealth but this minister as well, and the Premier, who declines to respond with respect to this abuse of tax dollars.

While he's running a record deficit in the province, hundreds of thousands of people have lost their jobs under his watch. We're now a have-not province under this Liberal government's watch.

I ask you again: Why are you not doing something about this? When are you going to fire Ms. Kramer and when are you going to step down?

Hon. David Caplan: Contrary to what the member opposite says, no one on this side has condoned anything and no one has defended. In fact, what I would say is that I have, and I know the Premier has, expressed concern about expenses which have come to light, and that is why we have taken action. That is why we have directed the board to initiate a third party review of their practices, of management practices and of the financial expenses. I think that taxpayers would expect that we would take action as we have.

On top of that, as the member well knows, we have an independent officer of this Legislature, we have the Auditor General, who has done an exemplary job over the years to protect taxpayer interest. He has been, for quite some time, looking at the expenditures in this agency. I will be speaking with Mr. McCarter this afternoon. We're working—

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

INJURED WORKERS

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Yesterday was the 26th annual Injured Workers' Day, for which a rally was held in front of the Legislature. Many injured workers spoke about the way they have been treated in the workplace by being encouraged not to report their injuries so that, in the flawed experience rating program, money will flow to their employer. They talked about how they are treated at the WSIB, being left feeling like frauds and a blight on the insurance program.

I want a straight answer—no smoke and mirrors, no sidestepping the question, no talking about your safety record. When will this government finally take action to return workers to a proper compensation system?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I appreciate the question from the member. It gives me an opportunity to thank the Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups and the Women of Inspiration for their kind invitation to me to join them on the front lawn of Queen's Park yesterday to speak with them and also to listen to many of their stories. They were very difficult stories, stories of pain and suffering.

But yesterday was a day to remember all those challenges that injured workers go through and the difficulties and obstacles they must overcome: getting injuries recognized, getting compensation, adjusting to life changes dictated by that injury or illness and, of course, returning to work. What I can assure all injured workers in Ontario is that this government is working with them and for them so that they are treated with dignity, respect—

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

Mr. Paul Miller: Once again, no answer. The plight of injured workers was demonstrated after yesterday's Injured Workers' Day rally by an overnight vigil in front of this Legislature. The minister told us many stories about things his ministry and the WSIB are doing for injured workers, but where are the results, Minister? If these programs were such a success, we would be seeing the outcomes, but now we see people in front of the Legislature again. I don't think it's working. Don't tell us about the 2% raise you gave them; it works out to be about $5 a week, a heck of a lot less than the consultants are getting.

Once again, I ask the minister for a factual response to my question. I don't want another Gong Show. When is this government going to really make positive changes in the lives of injured workers, like indexing their compensation package?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: We remain committed to creating a brighter future for injured workers. I know the member doesn't want to hear this, but under two previous governments, from 1994 to 2006, under the Friedland formula and the modified Friedland formula, those governments only increased injured worker benefits by 2.9%, and we saw erosion of 29% through inflation.

Here is what our government has done: in 2007, a 2.5% increase; again a 2.5% increase in 2008; and in January of this year, a further 2.5% increase. We are committed to working with injured workers to provide benefits for them and to rectifying the inequities—

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

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

Mr. Reza Moridi: My question is to the Minister of Research and Innovation. Here with us today in the Legislature is a group from the Youth Science Ontario Showcase, students who competed at the Ontario science fair and then went on to represent Team Ontario at the Canada-Wide Science Fair.

I would especially like to congratulate Adelina Cozma from my riding of Richmond Hill. In her project, Adelina explored the importance of how teenagers' emotions and thinking-style brains work together. Based on her own surveys, she determined the brain dominance and thinking-preference style of teenagers and examined their impact on emotional intelligence competencies, which influences behaviour towards bullying in the automotive domain.

Would the minister please outline the importance Ontario places on youth participation in science?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank my friend from Richmond Hill, who is himself an award-winning scientist, for the question.

On behalf of all members, I'd like to thank Youth Science Ontario and Youth Science Canada for the important work they do in fostering a love of science in young people from across Ontario and Canada. The young people who are visiting the Legislature this morning, like your constituent Adelina, are truly among a group of stellar young scientists in Ontario.

Out of the 387 projects at this year's Canada-Wide Science Fair, one third of those, 130, were from Ontario. Ontario students received over 200 awards, scholarships and honourable mentions for projects that tackled everything from biotechnology and engineering to information technology and environmental innovation. These are amazing accomplishments that we can all be proud of.

There is a reception for our young people in the St. Lawrence lounge of the Macdonald Block at 900 Bay from 1 to 4. I welcome all members to come and visit their constituents and let them know how very proud we are of them—

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

Mr. Reza Moridi: An understanding of science is a fundamental part of a well-rounded education and will become increasingly important in the knowledge-based economy.

Many Ontarian and Canadian icons have participated in science fairs, including the first female Canadian astronaut, Roberta Bondar, and Research in Motion founder Mike Lazaridis.

Lazaridis has stated:

"We need to change our culture so that science and technology are seen to be the 'in' thing....

"We need" our children "to aspire to be scientists, engineers and technologists. In the end, that will make the biggest impact on Canada's future."

I would ask the minister to explain what his ministry is doing to help foster the next generation of Bondars and Lazaridises here in Ontario.

Hon. John Wilkinson: If we're going to have a economy in the 21st century that's based on turning great ideas into great jobs, we need to do everything we can to ensure that the next generation of innovators, the young Roberta Bondars and Mike Lazaridises out there today, have the skills and qualifications necessary to support an innovation-based economy.

I'm particularly proud that the Ministry of Research and Innovation was able to support work like this in our 2007-08 budget, which included some $3.5 million for Youth Science Foundation Canada, which supports our work at science fairs across Ontario, and $1.5 million for Let's Talk Science. Each year, over 25,000 Canadian students, some 8,000 here in Ontario, compete through Youth Science Canada's regional science fairs, including 30 regional fairs here in Ontario. In the past two years, Let's Talk Science has grown to more than 300 sites across Canada and partners with some 10 of Ontario's finest universities.

It is so important for us in the future that we invest in our—

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

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: My question is to the Premier.

I'd like to take you back in time. I'd like to take you way back to last Thursday, May 28. You'll remember that the lead story of that day was the federal finance minister stating that the deficit could hit $50 billion. On that day, the Toronto Sun ran a short

article titled, "Preem Won't Revise Deficit Projections." In it, the Premier was quoted as saying, "I have no reason to believe ... based on the updates I've received from the Minister of Finance, that we aren't able to manage this." Then, yesterday, the same Minister of Finance admitted that the deficit would jump by an additional $4.4 billion.

The auto bailout numbers were obviously available last week because the feds adjusted their numbers despite the political damage they felt it might do. As the new economic development minister, surely these numbers were also known to you.

Premier, this is not your first broken promise, but it's perhaps the fastest-broken promise. Why did you say one thing last Thursday and do another one today?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I think if the member reads what has transpired over the course of the last week, he will find that in fact the numbers around General Motors didn't solidify until Sunday.

He quite properly raises the fact that the federal government's deficit has grown rather dramatically, and I think he should also be cognizant of the fact that this is happening across the world—certainly across the western world. These are very challenging times. It's part of an international financial crisis.

We have laid out a plan. As soon as we become certain about changes, we report those to the public. There will be further reporting at the usual time for the first quarter and fall statement, so that Ontarians can be kept up to date when the numbers become available.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Back to the Premier: I understand why the deficit went up, but the Premier now has the grand slam of record-breaking. He has the highest tax increase in Ontario's history, he has the largest deficit in Ontario's history and he has taken this province to have-not status—the grand slam of economics. This is the stuff of legacy.

The Premier is now also the Minister of Economic Development, which means he is in charge of the auto file. Premier, in my mind, there are three possible scenarios as to why you were so wrong last week: (

a) You were given bad information by the Minister of Finance; (

b) you did not read or understand the information; or (

c) you decided to delay telling Ontarians the facts for political expediency. Premier, which was it?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: This government has revised numbers at the earliest point in time practical—the first time it's happened. Once the GM numbers were solidified, we felt that, based on the outcome of that particular arrangement, it was appropriate to give greater clarity to where we saw the deficit tracking.

Since the tabling of the budget, a number of private sector economists have downgraded our forecasts for growth in the world—the Canadian and Ontario economies. We've also tried to take advantage of that, in terms of our forecast for where the deficit is.

I can undertake that we will continue to be as transparent and clear about this as we can to avoid hidden deficits of the order of magnitude—

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

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD

OF ONTARIO

Mr. Peter Kormos: To the Premier: The LCBO is owned by the people of Ontario and directly accountable to the government, yet it wants to turn 2,400 permanent, full-time jobs into part-time, part-year jobs. Already, more than 60% of the LCBO's workers are casual employees, with no job security, no benefits, no hope of retiring and an average income of less than $20,800 a year. Yet each of those workers is responsible for $200,000 a year in LCBO profits. Why is this Premier allowing the LCBO to attack the livelihood of its own workers?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I first want to acknowledge the outstanding people at the LCBO and the good work they do on behalf of all Ontarians.

The member opposite is aware that collective bargaining is going on between the LCBO and the employees of the LCBO. I would reiterate my very strong and firm belief in free collective bargaining, which is what is going on now. I hope that the two parties can continue to work together and resolve the disputes and issues that exist between them. It's an important part of our government, and again, I look forward to a successful resolution of the issues that are before the union and management today at the LCBO.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Look, the LCBO is a crown agency. All of its profits go directly into government coffers. A strike or a lockout will cost Ontario taxpayers up to $5 million a day in lost profits and taxes. How can this Premier sit back and simply risk this happening? Why doesn't he just tell the LCBO to stop its attack on full-time jobs and to work with OPSEU to improve the livelihoods of more than 4,000 casual workers who are struggling to make ends meet?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I want to reiterate to my friend and colleague opposite that we have faith in the collective bargaining process. There are, of course, in Ontario history, times where governments have not respected collective bargaining principles. The member opposite, of course, always maintained integrity on those issues. I know that he has great faith in collective bargaining and I know that he believes in the rights of workers to organize and to bargain collectively, unlike a number of his colleagues in the past who didn't see it that way.

I look forward to the successful resolution of the issues between management and union. I have great faith in the collective bargaining process and I have great faith in the structure of laws we have that deal with situations where collective bargaining can't necessarily resolve all situations.

WORKPLACE SAFETY

Ms. Helena Jaczek: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Minister, our health care workers are hard-working Ontarians who risk exposure to infectious diseases and handle potentially dangerous instruments in their jobs every day. These workers are often at risk of injury from contaminated needles. Puncture injuries can transmit serious infectious diseases such as hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV/AIDS. I understand that your ministry has launched a consultation concerning the use of safety-engineered needles in health care workplaces. Minister, can you please tell us about the purpose of this consultation and how it will help make the jobs of health care workers safer?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I'd like to thank the member for Oak Ridges—Markham for the question, for her advocacy and her knowledge as an expert in health promotion and protection. The member is quite right: When it comes to our health care workers, they do all they can to keep us healthy and safe, and that is why we're committed to doing all that we can to protect them from potentially life-threatening diseases.

Our government recognizes the importance of preventing these needlestick injuries, and that's why my ministry, along with the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, launched this joint public consultation on May 27 of this year: to look into extending our needle safety regulation. Health care workplaces and services being considered for this third phase, now, of regulation include doctors' offices, blood donor clinics, home care, and ambulance services.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Helena Jaczek: Thank you, Minister, for your response. I'm glad to hear that your ministry is moving forward with these plans to help increase protections for health care workers in this province.

You mentioned that the consultation that has just been launched is part of the third phase of your ministry's needle safety regulation. Minister, can you tell us about the first two phases of this regulation and what they have accomplished in terms of improving the health and safety of Ontario's health care workers?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Again, thank you to the member for the follow-up question and the opportunity to explain what my ministry has achieved to date when it comes to improving needlestick safety.

Phase one was the original introduction of the needle safety regulation, which came into effect in September 2008. This made safety-engineered needles mandatory for all hospitals across Ontario. In phase two, which came into effect on April 1, 2009, it went a step further and mandated that the safety needle procedures came into long-term-care homes, psychiatric facilities, labs and specimen collection centres. Last fall, we announced our intention to consult with stakeholders and to extend this regulation in 2010 to additional health care workplaces. We've followed up on that.

Our goal is to ensure safe workplaces for Ontario health care workers, and we are committed to doing that—

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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is for the new Minister of Economic Development. Canadian manufacturers and exporters are suffering because of the buy-American provisions in the US stimulus package. On Friday, no less than 27 business leaders joined the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, urging the Premier to take action.

They are urging him to "explore signing on to the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement and to pursue an even more ambitious agreement with the United States covering provincial/state/territorial and local governments." They are urging him to engage in urgent discussions with the federal government to support negotiations to keep US local and state markets open to our Canadian companies.

My question: Does the Premier agree with these recommendations, and why has it taken him so long to respond to this urgent and growing threat to Ontario's economy?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think my colleague raises some very legitimate concerns. I haven't seen the specific report put forward by this group of business people, although I read about it this morning, but I can say that it is something that has preoccupied the Ministry of Economic Development and my office for some time. Recently, I was—well, just a couple of weeks ago—in New York City and had an opportunity to meet with Governor Paterson, the representative of New York state itself.

I expressed some concerns about buy-America provisions and reinforced for the governor just how important it is for us to keep those borders open to trade back and forth, because there are so many—in fact, there are thousands and thousands of families on the US side that depend upon trade with Ontario. So we will continue to find ways to reach out to our colleagues south of the border, particularly our Great Lakes state governors, to reinforce with them the message they have to deliver to Washington that we've got to keep those borders open to our trade.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Arnott: I raise with the Premier the case of Hayward Gordon in Halton Hills. I toured John Hayward's plant on Friday. Because of the buy-American provisions, Hayward Gordon is already being shut out of bidding on US contracts. The need to take action to protect these jobs has been covered extensively in major Canadian news media and even the Washington Post, yet the McGuinty government was unprepared for this trade crisis. Almost thr