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

June 20, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2002-Jun-20 vol. A (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 20 June 2002 Jeudi 20 juin 2002

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SKILLS TRAINING

AUDIT AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA VÉRIFICATION

DES COMPTES PUBLICS

SKILLS TRAINING

AUDIT AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA VÉRIFICATION

DES COMPTES PUBLICS

WEARING OF PINS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WORKERS' MEMORIAL DAY

VOLUNTEERS IN SAULT STE MARIE

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

EDUCATION FUNDING

SIBBALD POINT PROVINCIAL PARK

OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES

ASSOCIATIONS FOR

COMMUNITY LIVING

WORKPLACE FATALITIES

FEDERAL HEALTH SPENDING

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

COMMUNITY LIVING DAY

ORAL QUESTIONS

INCOME TAX

EDUCATION FUNDING

COAL-FIRED GENERATING PLANTS

ONTARIO RENTAL HOUSING TRIBUNAL

COAL-FIRED GENERATING PLANTS

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

EDUCATION FUNDING

PRIVATE CLINICS

VETERANS

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

LABOUR DISPUTE

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION FUNDING

EDUCATION FUNDING

FOREST MANAGEMENT

SCHOOL SAFTEY

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

EDUCATION FUNDING

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

EDUCATION FUNDING

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION FUNDING

EDUCATION FUNDING

ONTARIO BUDGET

OPTOMETRISTS

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION /

ATTRIBUTION DE TEMPS

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

EDUCATION FUNDING

Thursday 20 June 2002 Jeudi 20 juin 2002

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): I move the resolution, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should:

Implement a comprehensive and effective training and retraining strategy relevant to today's economic and social needs;

Better utilize public and private institutional resources in order to rectify the ever-increasing learning gap;

Become an advocate on behalf of apprenticeship programs and remove barriers in areas of fees and access to such programs;

Initiate and crystallize a new relationship with other provincial jurisdictions and the federal government in order to better harness skills and training information and innovation and establish agreements to eliminate cross-border barriers;

Develop and implement cogent and comprehensive policy in areas of recognition of foreign credentials, transparent certification procedures, increased funding and programs of professional retraining for foreign-trained professionals.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member for Scarborough-Rouge River has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Curling: Thank you for this opportunity to debate a very important subject. The main goal of this resolution is to connect the importance of skills training, retraining and lifelong learning, and to outline the important social and economic benefit that an effective training strategy has in Ontario.

This connection of issues has been the anchor of many serious studies and reports. It is time for all of us to take this very seriously. It's imperative that we recognize the role of an active and responsible government in articulating this benefit. I reach out to you today on this most important matter so we can build a consensus, an understanding, a partnership. It is time for a new contract.

With this in mind, now is the time to crystallize an action-oriented policy. It is time for leadership. In order to have a comprehensive and effective training strategy, there are points of principles that we need to establish. What we need to establish is a training culture. What we need to advance is literacy awareness.

A training culture encompasses a change of attitude whereby we begin to interconnect the transformations in our society and economy. When we focus on training, we focus on people. And when we focus on people, we start from the beginning -- the beginning of learning, literacy, skills development, training, education and apprenticeship. They are all interdependent; not one single aspect can function alone. The link between learning and society is training, and it is here where we sow the seeds of training culture.

In addition to a training culture, we need to be very serious about literacy awareness. Functional illiteracy is among us and is rampant. In Ontario, 20.2% of the adult population do not have basic literacy skills, while a further 24% would be considered to have inadequate skills to function in our society today, not to mention their inability to meet changing labour market needs. But it is not merely about numbers; it's about bringing dignity to people and worth in knowledge and understanding.

We need to refocus and reconfirm our commitment to the early development of literacy skills, in both children and adults. We need to develop a lifelong connection to languages and to ideas that invite exploration by eager young minds and willing adults.

We need to become advocates. Advocacy carries with it responsibilities, conviction and leadership. This must be done in a manner whereby apprenticeship initiatives are respected and connected to the economy and to society. It's imperative that such advocacy become a central and positive theme in the larger training strategy.

Skilled trades are honoured traditions. We must be vigilant in our efforts in recognizing and appreciating that those entering such fields receive all the support, the appropriate tools and proper funding for today's modern economy. For that to happen, we need to eliminate the barriers that currently exist and improve access to apprenticeship programs at large.

Disincentives are high: high tuition fees; smug recognition of several trades; remarks you hear from time to time that those who can't make it academically can go into apprenticeship. Streaming is another disincentive that we have in our society.

Most importantly, it is essential that we clarify the confusion about the many programs that are currently in play, so as to identify their roles and meanings. Clarity is key to comprehension. Clarity and connection are key to a strategy. When we clarify the roles that colleges, universities, unions, businesses, professional associations and training institutions play, then we are better able to position and coordinate in a constructive manner the programs that currently exist.

By doing this, we properly assist those entering skills training to visualize the direction and path to be taken. This is especially important to students in high school who want to choose a career path for skilled trades but do not receive relevant strategic counselling and information. When we eliminate the overlapping confusions, then we are better positioned to become true advocates.

Another acute challenge facing us is meeting and matching the skills needs today, from all sectors, for tomorrow's economy and society. The larger issue is that Ontario faces a severe skills shortage across all trades, from plumbers to electricians, drywallers, IT specialists, pharmacists and nurses, and that's just to mention a few.

Now we enter what we call a very important theme: the brain gain. The fundamental objective for us to constructively and dynamically move away from the so-called and over-dramatized brain drain phenomenon and tap into the brain gain reservoir. The brain gain reservoir is in our own backyard. It is the many talented and educated foreign-trained professionals.

The province of Ontario has thousands of foreign-trained professionals who, for many reasons, are unable to practise in their designated fields. This fact has a severe social and economic impact on both individuals and the economy of Ontario. To impose unnecessary and injurious barriers is inhumane and contravenes any serious attempt at solving these shortages. Also, it is irresponsible to build walls around those who pursue a noble educational and career path.

It is estimated that this underutilized, underemployed job talent costs Canada over $2 billion per annum. The underutilized skills would benefit Ontario through economic growth and fill the current and potential skills shortages. Also, it would benefit local communities with their economic strategies and employment needs.

On the social benefit, it builds strong family values, establishes a sound foundation and brings dignity and pride and respectability to the family. The family would then be able to focus on the strong benefits of education and skills. Parents lose the respect of their children due to the way society has treated them. It does not recognize their skills, and they lose face in their family.

In other words, if we do not tap into this knowledge reservoir, we'll have a brain waste.

The regulatory bodies need to recognize their social and economic responsibilities by expediting the accreditation process and opening up the professional bodies. They are the gatekeepers to the professions. There seem to be too many obstacles in the way to achieve recognition.

A key role for the regulatory association is advocating on behalf of the potential professionals. They must also support programs such as ESL and other support systems from the government that need to be sustained and expanded. They must standardize acceptance of accreditation and recognition of foreign degrees and experience and foster willingness to remove visible and latent barriers that exist.

Essentially, the assessment and recognition of the education of foreign-trained workers is grossly neglected and is an issue of growing importance in Ontario and in Canada as a whole.

At this point, I'd like to recognize organizations such as the World Education Services, OCASI and others who continually remind us that as a society and an economy we pay a heavy price for the non-recognition of immigrant credentials. In fact, they have put out a challenge -- and I will today echo this challenge to Canadian and Ontario employers -- to recognize the value of foreign-trained, skilled workers and professionals who today are citizens of this country and residents of this province.

Governments also need to recognize their responsibilities by way of constructive, well-funded programs, by being the centre of relevant and coherent information, and being a true leader in institutional building.

More important, they must become involved, when advising potential immigrant applicants, with honest expectations of the system in Ontario and in Canada as a whole. It is one thing to lure potential professional applicants to come to Canada and Ontario. However, it is another not to fully inform and guide them about the possible barriers they might face. Canada must be honest with applicants overseas, as it must be honest when they are here.

We hear about Canadian experience, that many people have come here and haven't worked. It is in our interest to do so, and it is our honourable and moral duty toward new Canadians. The private sector, the businesses that benefit most from these professionals, also needs to take a leadership role and become part of the solution. An accurate understanding and evaluation of the skills, knowledge and experience of foreign-trained workers plays a role in enabling these workers to find jobs in which this preparation can be used to full advantage.

I'm reminded of the many and over-used anecdotes. We can see that many foreign-trained professionals are not being utilized fully. I hope my colleagues here will support this resolution.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women's issues): It's my honour and pleasure to be here this morning and to listen to my colleague and friend the member for Scarborough-Rouge River, who I think, during his tenure in this position, committed his very best efforts. We hope to do the same and improve upon them. Of course I'll be supporting this resolution this morning.

Ontarians should have an opportunity to work and develop their skills in their own communities. He, as I do, believes in province-wide access to leading edge apprenticeship and training programs. We believe in providing the best possible opportunities for skilled workers, apprentices, adult students and job seekers.

I came to this place in 1988 as a former chair of the London Board of Education because I cared very much about apprenticeship training, and I'm very pleased and honoured to have this job now where I can get right in on the front lines and work, as my colleague did when he had the job, in the interests of our young people, our economy and our workforce.

In this week's budget, as in the past, we've announced that we'll make further investments in apprenticeships of $5 million this year, rising to $25 million by 2005-06. There's been an announcement every year for the last five years. We believe in a made-in-Ontario apprenticeship training system.

Skills training is an important factor in economic growth. Goldfarb's study of the views of international investors said that "the most important resource which many companies consider when making investment decisions is the availability of skilled labour." This is a problem all over the world, but we have an opportunity in Ontario to inspire our workforce and we're going to do it and provide opportunities for them.

We are very proud. It's a major selling point for new investment. Traditionally our province has the highest percentage of workers with post-secondary education in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. We know that 35% of our young people go on to post-secondary education, but just as important is to get the right programs so that those who do not and those who do will get into the skilled workforce, because that's where we need them.

We need more education and more skills to give our workers a wider range of opportunities for work and greater confidence to adapt to change. Trained workers are also more likely to upgrade their skills throughout their careers and that's the story of this next generation -- upgrading. Technology does in fact get ahead of us.

But demographics is not on our side. We know that fully one third of Canada's workforce will be in a position to retire by the end of the decade; that's from the TD Bank. Last February the Canadian Federation of Independent Business reported that the demand for skilled workers is the highest it's been in the last 25 years.

There have been layoffs in the information technology industry. However -- this is for young people; it's for the workforce as a whole -- the industry still expects that its demand for skilled workers will exceed the current supply. The Information Technology Association of Canada estimates that 9,900 jobs will go vacant by the end of the year.

As early as 2010 all workers and job seekers will be competing in a job market where work is more complex and where employers demand higher levels of skills and training. This change will accelerate to the point where it's expected that half of the jobs people will have in 15 years will require skills to operate technology that is not yet invented.

What a challenge, especially when you realize that more than half of the people who will make up Ontario's workforce in 2015 are already working. That means these workers have completed what we traditionally consider their education. My colleague is absolutely right. Training is lifelong. It's more fun that way, but it's certainly more productive.

We have three challenges: help new entrants into the workforce get the basic skills to find and keep a job; ensure that existing employees have access to the workplace-based training they need to remain relevant in an increasingly technological world, and that's why we're doing our journeyperson updating; replace a significant portion of our leading managers, professionals and highly skilled workers as they retire -- and this means young people, when they go into these trades, could be entrepreneurs but will be managers much sooner than we were.

We've developed a coordinated strategy for training, and that is developed in partnership with our businesses, our trainers, our unions, our students, our schools.

Job Connect -- a great success story right here in the preparation programs in Canada. Some 85% of these people that are part of this program go back to school or get jobs, and we track it. This is one complaint I have with regard to our federal colleagues: we're not certain that they keep results. What we do get is that only 50% of their basic programs are successful, and that's not good enough.

Working with my colleague the Minister of Education, we're focusing on our high school students with more opportunities to learn about careers and have first-hand workplace experience before graduating from high school.

We listen to industry. We passed legislation that provided a more accountable framework for training skilled workers. We do intend to double the number of people entering apprenticeship programs. We intend to continue to work with our colleagues.

On Monday morning I was at the St Thomas campus of Fanshawe College. It's providing pre-apprenticeship training for people intending to be apprentice general machinists.

As you know, we're focusing on women in skilled trades and women in technological training.

The apprenticeship enhancement fund is a piece that supports that program in Elgin to support precision machine cutting training. This is updated under the apprenticeship enhancement fund.

There is so much that we are continuing to do. I'd like to talk about the Ontario youth apprenticeship program. We could go on to talk about our access to apprenticeship training, to literacy and basic skills -- which my colleague and I have both been focused on during our entire lives -- to adjustment services for people, getting more foreign-trained workers into the workforce faster -- "bridging programs" we call those -- for people with international training, as well as our summer jobs.

We have programs right now for people who have come to Canada that get them into the nursing profession and the pharmacology profession very quickly, but that's because the nurses and the pharmacists are working with us.

I'd just like to conclude by asking my colleagues across the House to assist us in our efforts to provide a labour market development agreement with our federal government. It would give us almost $600 million in apprenticeship and skills training funds that we could work together to deliver better. We've worked very hard to influence the federal government by providing results of our training programs and showing them where they work. I think by working together in this country we'll have a stronger Canada and a stronger workforce and greater hope and opportunity for not only our young people but people who come to this country from other countries and call Canada home.

Congratulations to my colleague.

Mr Monte Kwinter (York Centre): I rise in support of the resolution of my colleague from Scarborough-Rouge River. The issue that I really want to address is the integration of foreign trade professionals. This is something that is of particular interest to me because I have a very large number of immigrants in my riding, particularly Russian immigrants, who have had wonderful training at the highest level and find that not only are they not utilized, they're either unemployed or underutilized.

For individuals to be fully integrated and to become contributing members of Canadian society they need to find employment that utilizes their skills and training. I've heard of the problems individuals face in working in particular professions and in having their credentials recognized. These systemic barriers, and I'm really going to elaborate on that in a minute, transform what should be a transitional underemployment to chronic underemployment. This wasted potential results in a personal loss to the individual and to the province as a whole.

The province at some stage in its history created bodies that were empowered to regulate access to trades and professions in the province through licensing and registration requirements. These associations have operated in an extremely independent manner, often free of political scrutiny and accountability.

Many have used their role as protectors of the health and safety of consumers as a guise to protect the interests of their members through exclusionary entrance requirements. This has created even greater barriers for immigrants, who are viewed as a threat to the earning power of the members of some professional associations and as an unknown quantity with unknown qualifications by other bodies. For example, in Ontario there are at least 43 regulatory and professional bodies that regulate access to professions. In addition, more than 70 trades are regulated by the Ministry of Education.

But there is no complete list of every regulatory and professional body in each province, nor of the provincial departments that are supposed to be responsible. There is also no single body in Canada that assesses educational equivalency.

I want to talk about the profession of veterinary medicine -- this will be very interesting to Dr Galt -- to tell you about the systemic barriers. For example, for a foreign-trained professional veterinarian to get the ability to practise in Ontario, they've got to pass three exams: the A, B and C levels. At the C level, which is the practical examination, it now costs $6,000 for a foreign-trained veterinarian to take that test; that compares to $666 for a Canadian-trained applicant. So it's 10 times as much for a foreign-trained applicant to try the exam as it is for a Canadian-trained applicant.

For a recent immigrant who comes to this country, usually with limited resources, that is a systemic barrier. It just makes it virtually impossible for them to do that.

The other thing I want to talk about, and this comes directly from the department of veterinary medicine at Guelph, is some responses to questions asked by foreign-trained veterinarians.

It says, "If I am a foreign-trained veterinarian, can I enter the" department of veterinary medicine "program at the Ontario Veterinary College with advanced standing?" They've already got a degree in their home country, so they want to know if they can get advanced standing.

The answer is, "Due to the large number of regular applicants we have every year for the 100 spaces in each entering class, and the unlikelihood of spaces opening up in a class, we are unable to accept these requests...." So they've said, "If you want to get in, apply like everybody else." We all know that it's very difficult to get in in the first place. All they're asking for is some recognition of their particular training.

Another thing: "Can I do this on an occasional or part-time basis?" The answer is, "The veterinary courses are only available to people who are registered in the" department of veterinary medicine.

Another question: "Can I gain experience by working or volunteering in the OVC veterinary teaching hospital?" "Due to the large number of requests and the limited resources available, we regret that we are unable to permit volunteers in the hospital in order to gain veterinary experience." It's like the old adage, "I'm too light for heavy work and too heavy for light work." They're caught in a Catch-22.

There are many other areas where these systemic barriers are preventing us from achieving what my colleague has already stated: a brain gain instead of a brain drain.

I encourage all members of this Legislature to not only support but to enact legislation that will allow this problem to be addressed.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I want to say right off the bat this morning that this caucus will certainly be supporting the resolution before us today. We feel very strongly, as does the member bringing this forward, that one of the most important investments any government makes is in its people. Certainly where training is concerned, if we have any hope of competing in an economy that is becoming more and more global and moving more quickly as time goes by, we need to be reassessing our priorities and looking at where we're placing our emphasis, where establishing the fundamentals and the framework upon which our economy, industry and work in support of communities is concerned.

The government will say, as they have this morning, that they are going to put more money into apprenticeship and training and the development of that kind of capacity in the system. But if their track record to date is any indication, we'll be waiting a long time. I would suggest to people that they not hold their breath.

For example, in the budget that was just delivered here on Monday this week, people who are close to our colleges and universities will understand that, yes, there was a little bit of money put in to recognize the fact that we have a major challenge coming at us next year under the aegis of the double cohort. But there really isn't anything in the budget to recognize the need for us to invest heavily in the development of our skills and apprenticeship programs where our public sector training institutions are concerned.

We have colleges and universities out there already starving, having been cut back significantly over the last six or seven years, both in capital and operating, now desperately trying to find the money they will require to deal with the overwhelming number of students who will come at them next year, never mind the challenge that's there, given to them by those who work in the industrial sector of our communities and with the economy, to shift gears from time to time, to be flexible as the minister has suggested, to make sure we are putting in place the programs, training and supports, that we have the instructors and facilities to actually provide the kind of training the member from Scarborough-Rouge River brought before us this morning.

I want to make a couple of points with respect to that, besides what I've already said.

One is that if we don't invest in our colleges and universities and provide for the training and apprenticeship of some of the skills we need, we will be further behind as far as competing in the global economy is concerned. The other thing -- and later on I'll expand on it a little further -- is this issue of foreign-trained professionals in our communities.

I don't think one has to look much further than the area of trying to find doctors for, it seems, all communities in our province while at the same time we have literally hundreds, maybe thousands, of already trained foreign doctors across the province driving taxis and working in professions that aren't in keeping with the investment they have made in their own education and training, and the desire they have to participate as professionals -- doctors in our communities.

I only have to look at my own situation in Sault Ste Marie, where we're into more than a crisis -- we're beyond a crisis. We have some very difficult realities confronting us in my community in the not-too-distant future that could be responded to in some very serious way if the government would only live up to its rhetoric in terms of actually doing something to provide foreign-trained doctors with the opportunity to practise in our communities.

If the government's initiative, commitment and resolve to move aggressively and constructively on the front of foreign-trained doctors is any indication of what they're going to do where so many other skills and professions are concerned, I'm afraid we're going to be disappointed. Communities are going to be disappointed, and individuals looking for the kind of support these foreign-trained professionals can provide will be very disappointed as well.

Having travelled and spent some time in Europe over the last couple of years looking at how they develop their economy and what has given countries like Ireland and Finland a step up -- and as a matter of fact taken countries that were lagging behind the European economy in many serious and significant ways for a number of years to the very front of the pack -- I have to say that overwhelmingly most obvious is their understanding of the need to invest heavily in the buildup of intellectual capacity, invest heavily in their colleges and universities, so that technological innovation is out there on the cutting edge and in the forefront and money is being put into those institutions for research and development, which of course suggests that money needs to be put in as well, and they are doing it to make sure there are students attending so they can participate and drive in many significant ways that very important research and development capacity and component.

When you look at what we're doing here in Ontario, it's almost the exact opposite. We're not looking at investing in public institutions that will give us that edge in those areas in the global economy. We're thinking that the best way we can compete is to reduce standards, to reduce taxes, to provide less protection for our environment, for example, and also to reduce the role of government where giving leadership is concerned and in investment in those public institutions that we know are necessary and required if we're going to be able to compete.

For example, in Europe, starting back in the 1970s, the European Union, in partnership with member countries that were lagging behind somewhat or didn't have the resources, there was a tremendous focus on making sure the educational system was shored up, strengthened and invested in, such that in the early 1970s, major capital investments were made in educational institutions, colleges and universities. Not only that, but in the last 10 or 15 years, recognizing the need to make sure that all of their people have opportunity and are educated and that money doesn't get in the way of them considering going to college or university, they've wiped tuition fees out altogether.

The member from Scarborough-Rouge River, who's bringing the resolution forward this morning, mentions that we need to look at the question of fees and tuition where training and skills development are concerned. In Ireland and Finland, for example, there are no tuition fees for post-secondary education. They recognize that entrance into any profession any more, at a minimum, is a post-secondary education of some sort in those particular areas.

So they've made it as easy as possible, if students qualify, to get into those programs and take advantage of them, because they know that will contribute to the overall furthering of their economy and the well-being and social security of their particular jurisdictions.

That's all I have to put on the record on that this morning. I think it's a very important subject. It's something this government needs to turn their minds to immediately -- if it's not too late already -- in terms of our ability to compete out there and to provide the skills necessary to our people and to include our people in that very important exercise of doing business with the rest of the world.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm pleased to join in the debate this morning with respect to the member from Scarborough-Rouge River's resolution on training. I want to thank the member for bringing this forth. We're already doing a lot of what he's saying here, so I think it's appropriate to recognize that.

I'd like to say that in terms of apprenticeship training and dealing with providing the resources and training of our young people and people who want to upgrade their skills, I'm proud of the record of Georgian College in my riding. They've done a tremendous job, through the support of Minister Cunningham, in terms of these initiatives that the member opposite is seeking.

Certainly the automotive institute at Georgian College is one of a kind in the country. For many years it's been training young people with respect to the skills necessary to get into the automotive sector, be it marketing, production or sales. Also, the new program with respect to women in skilled trades and technological training has been a tremendous success at the college and is providing much-needed skilled trades personnel in tool and die and related to the automotive sector. We're very proud, in Simcoe county, of having Honda and a number of automotive companies that relate and provide parts to the automotive sector.

The college has a very proud record. I think their placement rate is about 93% to 95%, and it's geared toward vocational training and focused on the trades. They have other programs in terms of tourism and aviation. I think the ministry has given them great support to provide those programs and bring forth what's needed.

Certainly there's more that can be done, and we'd like to see the federal government play a much more active role than they have. In terms of the budget, I would quote Minister Ecker: "The government has modernized our apprenticeship system and increased funding by nearly 50%.

"In 1996, the federal government agreed to devolve primary responsibility for training to the provinces, along with nearly $2 billion from employment insurance funds to pay for employment programs. Six years later, Ontario is the only province where the federal government has refused to sign an agreement. We continue to urge them to sign the labour market development agreement to allow Ontarians to access almost $600 million in apprenticeship and skills training funds."

That is something that's part of this resolution in terms of working together with the federal government. I call on the member from Scarborough-Rouge River to use his influence with respect to the federal government to try to get them to co-operate with this province in terms of providing the funds that are necessary for skilled trades training. If not a major disappointment, it is discouraging to have a federal government that doesn't recognize the needs of the largest province in this country with respect to population and in terms of employment.

I want to commend the minister for the hard work that she's done in terms of this area. I believe we're moving in the right direction. I also want to commend the member from Scarborough-Rouge River for bringing attention to this and I think it supports the work we're doing.

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I hope that all members might join with me in welcoming this great school group from Our Lady of Lourdes school in the great riding of Toronto Centre-Rosedale.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. As you would know, that is not a point of order. We welcome you.

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): I'm very pleased to speak to my colleague's motion today. This is a very, very important issue. We're going to have a crisis on our hands in a few years if we don't deal with the skills shortages. I'm very proud to work with the member in giving the government ideas to address this challenge.

I want to talk a little bit, because my critic's role is colleges and universities, about the colleges and how they address skills development. They provide access to qualified students. They address skills shortages and respond quickly to industry requirements. They assist the market in maintaining global competitiveness. They provide programs that support the knowledge economy through curriculum development and renewal. They have laboratories and state-of-the-art equipment to provide our graduates with the needed skills.

Unfortunately, there's been a 40% decrease in funding in the last decade but a 35% increase in enrolment. When you take into consideration that 40% of post-secondary students in this province are college students, that's a significant gap.

We did acknowledge the government funding of the northern colleges in the budget this week. It was something we had talked to the government about, and we're really happy that they acknowledged the need up there and did fund the northern colleges. We thank the minister for that. But the rest of the colleges in the province got less than 7% of the money allocated for the double cohort. That won't be enough to address the challenge in 2003-04. It's in this area that the colleges have come out this week and said, "What do you expect us to do?

We have thousands of extra students coming, we have a skills shortages crisis looming and yet you give us less than 7% of what you gave the universities and the colleges for the double cohort."

I only have a couple of minutes, but I want to talk a little bit about the challenge of my city and my colleague Dominic Agostino's city of Hamilton. Our population is growing rapidly and is becoming much older. This is true for a lot of the province, but Hamilton is one at the top with this challenge. Immigration now accounts for approximately 85% of Hamilton's total population growth, and that percentage could rise to 100% over the next couple of decades. However, by 2013 the number of adults in the labour force pre-retirement age group will exceed the number of youths in the labour force pre-entry group.

In other words, the 55- to 64-year-olds will exceed the 15- to 24-year-olds. This gap of course widens mathematically in the future years. Therefore, Hamilton's labour force growth will cease altogether shortly after 2016 and the absolute size of the workforce will actually begin declining. This is a very significant challenge for Hamilton, as it is for the rest of the province.

Mohawk College is a very important partner in addressing these challenges, and this week Mohawk College did not get the funding they needed in order to graduate students and give apprenticeships to address this huge challenge.

The other point I want to make is that we are the only province in the country that has not signed a skilled trades agreement with the government.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: We actually signed it. They haven't signed it.

Mrs Bountrogianni: OK. The minister says, "We actually signed it. They haven't signed it." I have had conversations with both sides and I understand the differences. However, I think in this case, the point that Ontario is the only province where an agreement has not been reached says something. I'll stop there on that issue. I do hope that we sign that agreement.

Educational institutions will inherit massive staffing obligations over the next decade. We need to hire professors for community colleges. The amount of money that was given this week in the budget will not allow that to happen. I make a plea to the government to address the colleges' budget shortfall so we can address the skills shortages.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Good day -- I thought I was answering the phone. I was doing two things at the same time. As you know, we're all busy in this assembly and sometimes trying to get straight what we're doing is quite interesting.

First of all, I want to rise in support of my good friend Mr Curling, who brings this resolution forward in order to deal with what I believe is a very serious issue in this province, the whole issue of training. You know, for example, that one of the unfortunate things the government has done over the last six or seven years was to really gut the apprenticeship training system in the province.

Before coming to the assembly, I was one who benefited from the apprenticeship training system in this province. I'm a journeyman electrician by trade and learned my trade by working in the mines in the Timmins area and going off to trade school in Ottawa and Toronto to learn the technical part of the trade to be able to write my licence.

I've got to say to the government, you just don't get it. What happens is that for years we've had an apprenticeship training system that was there to train people to work in the skilled trades in the plants and mines and various places across the province. It was a system, by and large, that worked fairly well. Ontario, compared to other jurisdictions, qualified some of the best tradespeople in the world.

Now we've gone to a system where there is no longer any incentive for employers to hire apprentices. There used to be a time, for example, when I went in when the employer was given a tax cut by way of a percentage of the wages they had to pay me in order to be able to train as an apprentice. So, for example, the first year of my apprenticeship the employer got a tax credit to offset the wages they paid me as a newly hired apprentice-trainee in the electrical field, and in the second and third years, progressively the tax reduction became less and less. As a result, the employer had an incentive to hire me.

The second thing the program did was that it allowed me to go off to trade school a number of times, and trade school was paid for by the province of Ontario. You went to a college of your choice, one of our community colleges. I chose both George Brown and Algonquin College to do my training and, when I went there, I didn't have to pay any tuition to get in the door. That was paid by the province. Unfortunately, this government now views apprenticeship training as any college program, and apprentices who are going off to get trained are now having to pay tuition to get in the door.

That means, quite frankly, that most apprentices -- obviously they're younger -- don't have the money, in most cases, are married and have obligations at home. I know, from the very few apprentices who are being trained in the province and talking to some of the people in the trade schools, they're finding it very difficult to go off to trade school because there really is no incentive there.

For that reason, the NDP caucus has been working on a package to revamp the entire apprenticeship training system. We believe, as my good my friend Tony Martin talked about earlier, that training, education, is a key component to the development of a strong economy. One of the things we believe as New Democrats is that we need to have not only community colleges to train people coming out of high school or deciding to go back to college or university, but we have to have a good apprenticeship training system.

We're working on a program now that would see, if we were elected as the government, a newly devised apprenticeship training program that goes beyond the skilled trades as we understand them. So if an employer out there is working in manufacturing or production-type work, they would able to say, "There are some skilled jobs that we have within our employ that don't fall under the old category of skilled trades, but we think there needs to be some skills training for those people to do that."

So in co-operation with our community college system or our universities, we would be able to develop the proper training programs to make sure there's accredited training and at the same time have a type of tax credit for the employer to be able to offset the costs of training those employees while they're in the apprenticeship training system. We would also reverse what the government has done by way of putting tuition fees in place for apprentices across this province.

The reason we believe that, as my good friend Mr Martin from Sault Ste Marie has raised, is that if you look at the successful economies of Europe, one of the key components of those economies working has been training. They call Ireland the Celtic Tiger. Mr Martin's done a lot of work on this, working between Sault Ste Marie and Ireland to develop trade opportunities between his city and region and Ireland.

The story of Ireland's success is that one of the first things they did -- if you remember, way back when, Ireland had an economy that was not doing as well as it is now. Quite frankly, it was one of the worst economies in Europe. Then the government there decided to focus in on what the best opportunities were. They decided it was on the tech side, and they provided free college or university education to anybody who had the marks and who wanted to go.

As a result, they've built a skills base within the economy, so when employers and future investors are looking to invest in Ireland, they've got the people to draw into those employers to do the jobs that have to be done. As a result, the Irish economy has moved in leaps and bounds and is one of the leading economies in Europe today.

So I say your old ideological ideas of the right don't work. What you need to do is to take a look at what's happening in Europe under some progressive governments. Look at training from the perspective of an investment in our future, not only of our people but also in our overall economy as an economic activity.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My compliments to the member from Scarborough-Rouge River for bringing forward this resolution. It is certainly one that I can enthusiastically support, particularly from being out in rural and small-town Ontario on the task force that the Premier set up a few years ago on rural economic renewal. Skills training was one of the top three issues they kept bringing forward.

I well remember doing some follow-ups last June, just a year ago now, being in Seaforth when a very significant industry in that community made the statement that if they were to close in that small town, they would never build again in small-town Ontario because of the difficulty of getting skilled workers into that community. I thought that was most unfortunate. It wasn't line workers; it was the skilled mechanics and the skilled electricians.

Lack of skilled workers is more of a problem in small-town Ontario than in the big cites. A large part of it has to do with a cultural issue. Parents want their kids to go to university. There's something wrong with going to colleges. A typical conversation with a guidance teacher is, "Oh, you wouldn't want to go to college or become a skilled worker. You'd want to go to university. I went to such and such university. It's a great university. Wouldn't you like to go there?" I think it's unfortunate that that happens.

Have a look at some of the skilled workers at GM. A little overtime and they're over $100,000 a year. That's what skilled workers can accomplish.

I wanted to make reference to the comments from the member for Sault Ste Marie, talking about lack of R&D. Have a look at the challenge fund. I was recently at the bioconference. Ontario is the best place to do R&D, for any company. That's why we have so many pharmaceutical companies here. The Japanese delegation recognized that. Individuals at the bioconference walked up to me and told me that: there is no place like Ontario to do R&D.

He was also talking about nothing for the north. I don't think he looked at the budget. There is $100 million for northern and rural colleges and $6 million for northern and rural universities. I think he should have a look.

The member for Timmins-James Bay talked about the apprenticeship program being gutted. Yes, $100 million was gutted from the apprenticeship program by the federal government. Let's look at who is doing the gutting. No wonder they have a surplus, with what they've cut from health care, down to 14 cents on the dollar, and cutting $100 million out of apprenticeship programs for our students who want to get some skills training. That's where the problem is.

I also appreciated the comment from the member for York Centre and some of the systemic barriers that are out there. I was unaware of that differentiation that he brought forward. But that's not the only place. We also have barriers for our physicians and many of our other professions.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): It is my pleasure to briefly join this debate. The member for Scarborough-Rouge River is trying to elevate the discussion in this House, but it does not come without a price. It is about this House recognizing that we have an obligation.

The world has changed mightily in the last 10 and 15 years and we have fallen behind other jurisdictions. What the member for Scarborough-Rouge River is trying to tell us is, let's get back to first principles here. Let's see if we can, in a non-partisan way in private members' hour, subscribe to the idea that every member of our community and our society who lives in Ontario should be able to reach their potential. They should be able to reach their potential for their own self-potential, but also, frankly, for the benefit of the rest of us.

We don't do well. We, in the Liberal portion of the House, see inimitably that what's advanced in the last number of years as our rights doesn't mean anything if they can't be exercised by a broad sweep of society. Sadly, that can't be said to be true about Ontario today.

For example, I point to the area of high schools where we have general and utter confusion when it comes to workplace curriculum. In grades 9 and 10 for example, we have nothing there for kids who might find themselves on a track to colleges and universities. There is confusion again at the college level where right now, if you call up colleges, they will tell you different things about how they will interpret the new curriculum. Does that matter in the soup of things? It does, because the principle here is that we would allow that to happen, that we would allow what's happening, which is kids to dead-end in our high schools right now.

Last year 55% of kids in grade 9 failed the applied math test. Now we may think, "Tough on those kids," but do you know what that means? We have a car crash that's going to reverberate because kids won't qualify for many of the courses that would get them into apprenticeships that would maximize their skills and training along the way.

It's the business of this House that this not happen. Instead, right now we have something that we have to untangle: we have what we call curriculum casualties. If we had subscribed to the principles that were put forward by the member for Scarborough-Rouge River, we wouldn't have let that happen. We would have a higher regard for the fact that the old-fashioned race is, "How many people can we get out of high schools and into colleges and universities? Let's not worry about the rest." Well, the rest is 45% or 50% of the kids. In 1950 that didn't matter. In 1960, 1970 and 1980 it didn't matter as much.

But it matters today and we do not have a plan here. We have an itsy-bitsy, tiny program to try and address the needs of the rest of the youth of this province.

We have something that, on all sides of this House, we have to say has been inadequately addressed in terms of our sincerity in welcoming people from other provinces, and it is disheartening to see other fingers being pointed. We can't get a training program going and we can't get foreign-trained professionals to work to their ability. That is a failure on all our parts. I want to thank the member for Scarborough-Rouge River for putting us in a position to address that and to take the first step, which is recognition of the basic principles to actually address that situation.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): I appreciate having time, even if it's just a few minutes, to support my colleague from Scarborough-Rouge River on his very foresightful resolution today to really try to transform Ontario into a skills-culture society. That is something we really have to do to make sure that, in a world that's being driven by knowledge-based industry, we keep our competitive edge in Ontario, and that all our working men and women in this province are competitive and can be world leaders in all the various skill sets.

I'd like to compliment the member for Northumberland on his observation that part of our culture really has to change, that we, as parents, would say we want our children to go to university and many of us will dismiss the tremendous skills and jobs that are out there. Whether we're guidance counsellors or parents, we need to make sure our young people are exposed to all the possibilities to earn a living. Gyproc installers in Toronto make up to $100,000 a year. It is tremendous what our skills contribute and how you can make a very good living and raise a family with the many skill sets that are available in Ontario.

Germany is an example that for 150 years has had a skills and apprenticeship culture. Part of their success, I believe, is that they start that at so young an age. I think we've allowed our apprenticeship programs to develop much later in life. We need to be identifying those opportunities in high school and start to co-share with work a little more in apprenticeship programs and the academic work we do in high school.

I would say to the minister, who is here and I'm glad she is here, that we should not be putting barriers to apprenticeship programs. I consider the new classroom fee the minister introduced as a barrier to apprenticeships. It's $400, and a lot of people might say, "What's $400?" But if you take an electrician, for example, basic in-classroom training is $400. Then it's another $400 for your intermediate training. If you go into advanced training, which an electrician is going to require to get her ticket, it's another $400.

Then you work for a year, and if you go into optional industrial electronics training, that's another $400. So a $1,600 penalty on trying to be an electrician in this province has been imposed by the minister and the Ernie Eves government.

We're trying to make sure we transform ourselves into a learning culture, and yet we put penalties in the way of people. That's not a very good signal we're sending our young people. We want to encourage them to get training and take away those barriers. Let's get Ontario trained and competitive.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Scarborough-Rouge River has two minutes.

Mr Curling: Let me thank my colleagues for supporting this resolution. I'm sure it's on their minds, and basically what the resolution does is raise the awareness of it. I just want to make sure too that some of the things that may slip away from us, like the fact I raised that about 44% of our people being functionally illiterate or illiterate -- it's difficult to train any nation if they have that sort of inability.

The anecdote goes, and we hear very much, that we have so many doctors and engineers driving taxis. It seems to me that that's why they are such bad drivers. They should really be doctors and engineers. The fact is, if we could concentrate on putting people where they are better utilized, we wouldn't have that brain waste; we would have a brain gain in all this. So I would encourage the government to let them practise medicine and engineering.

At the end of the day, there's a need to leverage our diversity. The key to this is connecting people -- talent, knowledge, education, experience and the economy -- a new contract between Canadians who are foreign-trained professionals and the directorial bodies of their respective professions -- which I call the gatekeepers -- the government and the private sector. The new contract must be bold and innovative, whereby a centralized solution is the desired objective. The new contract is the essence of a training culture. Therefore I ask for and appreciate very much my colleagues' support of it.

As a matter of fact, I'm very passionate about the fact that it brings dignity and self-worth to individuals and their families that a father or mother can stand up and say, "You should go to school and get an education," and the kid cannot turn back and say, "But what happened to you, Dad? You're an engineer and you're driving a taxi." I encourage us all to develop that training culture to bring dignity back to the family.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allocated for debate on ballot item number 51. I will put the question at 12 o'clock noon.

AUDIT AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA VÉRIFICATION

DES COMPTES PUBLICS

Mr Gerretsen moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 5,

An Act to amend the Audit Act to insure greater accountability of hospitals, universities and colleges, municipalities and other organizations which receive grants or other transfer payments from the government or agencies of the Crown / Projet de loi 5, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la vérification des comptes publics afin d'assurer une responsabilité accrue de la part des hôpitaux, des universités et collèges, des municipalités et d'autres organisations qui reçoivent des subventions ou d'autres paiements de transfert du gouvernement ou d'organismes de la Couronne.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member for Kingston and the Islands has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I'm very pleased to speak on this bill today, because it's something I've always been extremely interested in, both at this level of government and at the local level.

As a matter of fact, back on December 20, 2000, I introduced a similar bill, Bill 180, which was not debated because the House prorogued. Immediately after the throne speech that was made in this House by the government in April 2001, I reintroduced the bill as Bill 5.

Let me say at the outset that this is not a new idea. Similar bills -- maybe not exactly the same -- have been introduced by other members in this House. Mr Maves from Niagara Falls introduced a similar bill back in 1996 that was approved by this House but unfortunately didn't go anywhere.

Let me also quickly say that this is not a new idea to this House in any way, shape or form. We go right back to 1989 when, under a Liberal government, the public accounts committee at that point in time urged a bill of a similar nature, and again back in 1993. As a matter of fact, similar bills have been introduced and discussed by the public accounts committee over the last 13 years under all three different governments.

What is the purpose of the bill? The purpose of the bill is to give greater accountability about how the taxpayers' dollars are being spent -- not to the government necessarily, but to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Some 60% of all the money the government spends goes to transfer agents or grant recipients. In effect, what this bill will do is give the auditor the right to follow the money, to see whether that money is actually being expended by the grant recipients for the purposes for which it was intended.

It also gives him powers to inspect, and powers to examine under oath individuals who may be receiving these grants in one way or another. But it also puts an obligation on him to keep confidential the information he receives; it can only be used for the purposes as contained in the act. So any freedom-of-information issues are addressed in the act.

Why should the Provincial Auditor have these powers? Well, the Provincial Auditor is one of the five officers of this assembly who are responsible not to the government, not to the opposition, but to the 103 members who are elected to this Legislative Assembly. He would be responsible to the Legislative Assembly.

As I mentioned earlier, this goes right back to 1989, when the public accounts committee at that time passed a motion endorsing that the auditor would be given these kinds of powers. It's happened on three or four occasions since that time. Every time, what seems to happen is that the finance minister of the day -- all well-meaning, well-intentioned individuals, regardless of political stripe -- has said, "Yes, this is a good idea. We're studying it and we may actually do something about it."

This government actually went farther than that. In its throne speech of April 19, 2001, it made the statement that it would propose "amendments to the Audit Act that would empower the Provincial Auditor to ensure that institutions funded by Ontario taxpayers use that money prudently, effectively and as intended." Well, that has not happened as yet. I know the government members will very well say, "Well, it's going to happen." All I can say to that is that similar promises have been made over the last 13 years without effect.

What I'm simply asking the members of this assembly to do is to pass this bill and send it off to committee. Let's see if we can collectively come up with a bill, perhaps with some amendments, that will make all the grant recipients, including government departments, in one way or another more accountable to the Legislative Assembly through the Provincial Auditor.

I know that from time to time all of us may disagree about certain government programs, as to whether money should or should not be spent, but that's not the issue here. Surely we all agree that whatever money is being expended under government programs should be expended wisely, in a cost-efficient and accountable fashion. That's what this is all about. That's what the work of the public accounts committee is all about. I would urge the members to see it that way.

As a result of the public accounts committee making a request to the Minister of Finance as to whether or not he would be introducing amendments to the Audit Act, as have been promised over the last 13 years by governments of all three political stripes in the House, he stated in a letter addressed to myself, as chairman of the public accounts committee, "I am pleased that the standing committee on public accounts supports the expansion of the Provincial Auditor's powers to permit full-scope value-for-money audits of grant recipient organizations." Those are the words of Mr Flaherty, who was then the finance minister.

So I would simply ask, if we truly believe in the notion that whatever money is being expended publicly should be expended in a truly accountable fashion, that members of all sides support this bill.

I know there may be a fear out there, particularly by some of the transfer agents -- in hearings for health on this issue back in 1996 -- who are not all that much in favour of it. The hospitals, the universities, the colleges, the municipalities, have all said, "We really don't need this." Maybe they fear the fact that the Provincial Auditor will be, in effect, doing complete audits of them.

The amendments specifically state that the Provincial Auditor will only have the ability to audit the books of those particular agencies, of the universities and the colleges and the hospitals and the municipalities and other grant recipients, to the extent of the grant or the money that is actually being transferred to them, for the sole purpose of ensuring that the money is being spent in the areas that the government has given the money for in the first place.

I know there may also be a fear -- and I would just say to those organizations that accountability is what it's all about. This has nothing to do with the notion of academic freedom, as I've heard from some of the transfer agents, some of the universities and colleges. This has to do with making sure that the money that is collected from you and me as taxpayers is being spent properly, in truly authorized government programs that are out there from time to time.

There is also the fear that, will the Provincial Auditor, in effect, be auditing grant recipients that get a very minuscule amount of money from the government? I would surely hope that all of us in this House can agree that the Provincial Auditor, being held in as high esteem as he is, and his office are only going to audit those organizations that may be necessary from time to time. He's not going to make complete audits in situations where the transfers to particular grant recipients are of a very small and very minor nature. I think that kind of concern that's been out there can be alleviated.

One may very well ask why, traditionally, the finance ministries and the Ministers of Finance, of all three political stripes in the House, have been reluctant to endorse this. They've always said so, but they've never really done anything about it. It may have something to do with the fact that maybe there's a feeling that they may actually lose some power.

I think the fundamental difference in governments holding their transfer agents responsible to government is that this is an accountability issue not of the transfer agent to the government but of the transfer agent to the Provincial Auditor, who, after all, is an independent officer of this assembly. That's where the fundamental difference lies between the amendments that I'm proposing and the Public Sector Accountability Act. There may very well be reason for there to be a Public Sector Accountability Act, whereby the government may want to hold the people that we give the money to accountable.

But the kind of accountability that I'm talking about is through the Provincial Auditor, the independent agency that exists for this purpose.

I would hope that members of this House will not only endorse this concept, because surely to goodness we all want to make sure that money is being expended wisely and in an accountable fashion, but that they would also see this process through by referring it to a committee of this House and by adopting whatever comes out of that committee by way of amendments and otherwise.

I look forward to the ensuing debate and hope that all members of the House will accept this in the spirit that it's given, the notion that we all surely want to make sure that all government money is being spent in a wise and prudent fashion.

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): I'll be sharing my time with the member for Northumberland and the member for Durham.

It was interesting to listen to the member speak. I hope he didn't talk himself out of this bill.

Efficient, effective and accountable government is very important to the people of Ontario. Our government recognized this back in 1995 when the Common Sense Revolution, largely based on the principles of transparency and accountability, helped lead our party to a landslide victory. Taxpayers rewarded us for our commitment to an effective, efficient and accountable government by giving us a second consecutive majority win, in 1999. We were certain that this was something that taxpayers in Ontario have come to expect from their government.

Ontario taxpayers understand the value of each and every dollar and the importance of priority-setting and responsible spending. They relate to the old saying, "Every penny counts." So too does their government. Unlike the federal Liberals, where last year it was the human resources boondoggle and this year it's the questionable contracts to party-faithful friends, we take the word "accountability" very seriously. The Ontario government's definition of accountability is actually based on what the word is meant to mean.

Accountability is a way in which organizations and their workers must answer to and take responsibility for their performance to those who pay for and use their services. Those people are the taxpayers of Ontario. Without accountability, faith and respect in all government, institutions would not exist.

This government, as we have said in the past, solidly believes that tax dollars belong to the hardworking people of Ontario, not to the government. Taxpayers, citizens and users of government services expect, in fact demand, that the government deliver quality services in the most efficient manner possible. Over the past seven years, the government has improved and will continue to improve its own ability to deliver the most efficient and effective services possible to the people of Ontario.

This morning, Bill 5 will receive second reading. This is

An Act to amend the Audit Act to insure greater accountability of hospitals, universities and colleges, municipalities and other organizations which receive grants or other transfer payments from the government or agencies of the Crown. It is a bill that further demonstrates the government's ongoing commitment to accountability and transparency to better serve Ontario taxpayers and ensure future prosperity for the people of this great province.

Mr Speaker, allow me to quote something from our leader, Premier Ernie Eves, who was the finance minister back in 1996: "The people of Ontario expect their government to live within its means ... we are finding savings in every area of government activity. The government is making the same difficult decisions and adjustments that we have all had to make at home and at work in our everyday lives." Today, the discipline that then Finance Minister Ernie Eves brought to the way government spends taxpayers' hard-earned dollars is continuing as he now leads us as Premier of Ontario.

This is why we continue to pursue a consistent course of tight fiscal discipline, balanced budgets and debt reduction in order to provide more resources to priority areas. As a result, excluding health care and education, real program spending per person is down by close to 30% since 1995-96.

This year's budget continued with our tradition of efficient, effective and accountable government. We are doing even more to ensure taxpayers receive the best value possible for their hard-earned dollars.

As I mentioned earlier, Bill 5 is

An Act to amend the Audit Act. Currently, the Provincial Auditor can do inspection audits of grant-recipient organizations, which is a strict evaluation of accounting records only. Under a value-for-money mandate, the Provincial Auditor would be able to assess whether grant-recipient organizations are delivering services with due regard for economy and efficiency and how they measure the end report on their own effectiveness.

Over the past decade, the Provincial Auditor has lobbied for this extended mandate and has had the support of the public accounts committee, of which the member is Chair, I believe. Since 1990, the Provincial Auditor and the public accounts committee have been requesting significant changes to the Audit Act, including the right to broaden the scope of current strict evaluations of accounting records of grant-recipient organizations. To date, five of the other nine provinces in Canada have the legislative mandate to conduct full-scope audits on grant recipients.

On April 19, 2001, the government announced in the speech from the throne its intention to allow the Provincial Auditor to conduct broader audits on publicly funded institutions.

Following the speech from the throne, a private member's bill had its first reading on April 23, 2001, as the member mentioned. Bill 5 is a reintroduction of MPP John Gerretsen's Bill 180 from the previous year. Under Bill 5, the auditor would be able to conduct full-scope value-for-money audits of grant-recipient organizations. This act will address this government's belief that the public has the right to know that their tax dollars are being spent efficiently and in their best interests.

Effective, efficient accountability is required not just of the government of Ontario but of all institutions funded by taxpayers. Bill 5 would ensure that other organizations, such as hospitals, universities and colleges, continuously strive to follow the best management practices. This government is determined to make this happen. We want to make these organizations more open and accountable to the public because taxpayers simply deserve to know how their money is being spent. No other jurisdiction in North America and no other government is so actively pursuing value for taxpayers' money.

I said it before and I'll say it again: the government has been saying for years that tax dollars belong to the hard-working people of Ontario, not the government. That is why efficiency, effectiveness and accountability are so important to Ontario and its future prosperity.

I congratulate the member from Kingston. Perhaps he is like a phoenix rising from the ashes when he has been converted to the responsible, efficient and accountable use of taxpayers' dollars. I hope this is so, and I hope it is not a new head of the hydra that may be appearing for the first time.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to join the debate. Clearly the issue of understanding the province's finances and the public having a right to see them is of paramount importance.

To the previous speaker, I'd quote Mr Eves too. In 1995 he said, "We're going to get rid of two sets of books." Well, on Monday this week we found we still have two sets of books. The budget was tabled here on Monday and the estimates were tabled here on Monday, and in many ministries' spending there was a $400-million or $500-million difference. And it was Mr Eves who in 1995 promised we'd have the budget presented before the fiscal year started. So I think we have made very little progress in the last seven years in getting a clear picture for the people of Ontario of our finances. This year's budget said we'll finally do it next year, April 1, 2003.

I'm extremely supportive of measures that will add clarity to our finances. Right now, they're not. The auditor made the point about the two sets of books, telling the people of Ontario that there is confusion in the finances. He quoted a billion-dollar expenditure in health that in one set of books was recorded in one fiscal year and in the other set of books recorded in a different year -- a billion-dollar swing.

In terms of the need to understand the finances of our partners, it's extremely important. The province has taken about $5 billion of debt that in the past would have been on the province's books and moved that debt off the province's books on to off-book debt financing. They moved it on to school boards. School boards now have about $2 billion worth of new debt to fund new schools that used to be on the province's books and now has been put on the school boards' books. By the way, I would add that the school boards are paying at least a quarter of 1% higher interest to borrow that money.

The taxpayers are essentially just wasting at least $5 million a year in extra interest costs to have the school boards borrow that money rather than the province. Exactly the same thing is happening with our colleges and universities. They've got about a billion and a half dollars of new debt that previously would have been on the province's books and is now on their books. Of the increased grants for colleges and universities, $100 million is going to go to pay the interest on that new debt. Exactly the same thing, I might add, has happened with nursing homes.

There are 20,000 nursing home beds, long-term-care beds, being built. In the past the province used to help fund that. No more. The province has said, "You go out and borrow that money and we'll pay you $10 a day per person. We'll pay essentially the principal and interest costs."

So I say to the people of Ontario, why is it important that we understand the finances of our transfer partners? It's because there is at least $5 billion of new debt on their books that used to be on the province's books. Creative accounting, which frankly has got a lot of businesses in trouble, moved it off the province's books on to their books and it's costing $12.5 million a year in extra interest costs.

So why is it important that we have a good look at and a good understanding of these books? It's because an awful lot of the finances are the responsibility of the provincial taxpayers, and in the interest of clarity -- I'd say at least $5 billion of new debt -- we have to understand that.

So I appreciate the proposal by my colleague. I think it will add a note of transparency to the province's books at a very timely point.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I'm happy to speak to this resolution this morning and, right up front, to say that we certainly will support the effort of the member from Kingston. We think any move forward to improve accountability, to let the people of Ontario and ourselves know how money is being spent, where it's being spent, whether there is value for investment and then by that to give us some indication of perhaps where money might be more appropriately spent is always very helpful.

I guess it surprises me that there aren't in place some vehicles that would allow for the auditing of the MUSH sector financial statements, financial carryings-on, by the Provincial Auditor, though I say that recognizing that in most instances the MUSH sector, those municipalities, universities, schools, hospitals and other groups funded by the provincial government, do act very responsibly, do take their responsibility very seriously.

I think that if you were to take a look at any of their financial transactions at any given time you'd find that they're operating above-board and honourably and trying to do the best they can with the money they have. However, that's not what I wanted to focus on in my comments this morning with regard to this issue.

I'd like to first of all say that I hope -- and knowing the member from Kingston, I'm sure I'm correct here -- that this isn't an attack on the MUSH sector, on municipalities, universities, schools, hospitals etc. It's rather a challenge to this government to be more responsible, be more accountable, to work more co-operatively with their partners in the delivery of public services in this province, particularly when you consider the major shift that has happened over the last six or seven years in terms of who delivers what any more in Ontario.

It's hard to figure out from one week to the next who's responsible for what and who, at the end of the day, will be held to account for what. Just from that perspective, if this isn't, hopefully, somehow a criticism or an attack on these sectors, then I think it would prove to be a valuable exercise.

I'm sure if you talk to any of the people particularly in municipalities these days, you'd find that they would appreciate anybody paying attention to the concerns they're raising about the fact that they're being asked more and more to deliver services they were never expected, when they got into the business of municipal government, to have to deliver, and alas, to their chagrin -- and we've made this point many, many times over the last six or seven years -- there isn't the money.

There is the responsibility shifted down, there is the download of the requirement to deliver all kinds of services, from health services to housing to ambulance to all kinds of other things that traditionally have either been delivered directly and solely by the province or in partnership with the province that municipalities are now being asked to deal with, and they're simply not being given the resources and the wherewithal to live up to that very onerous and serious responsibility.

So I'm sure that these organizations, these agencies, these vehicles of government would welcome the auditor coming into their jurisdiction and looking at their books and then working with them to send a message to the general public out there, and then through them, in particular to the government to say, "It's not a question of irresponsibility. It's not a question of somebody doing something untoward or illegal here.

It's a question of governments, colleges, universities, hospitals trying desperately to find ways to be creative, to stretch that dollar that they are now getting to cover those areas that they are being asked to cover, and they know they don't have the resources to do it." So I'm sure they'd welcome in the bat of an eye anybody coming in to talk to them about that particular issue.

For example, the colleges and universities sector: if you look at the budget that was delivered on Monday, yes, there's some increase in that budget to universities and colleges, but that increase is targeted almost solely and completely to the very real challenge that colleges and universities are going to meet next year.

There has been absolutely nothing up to now to colleges and universities to deal with the reality of the double cohort, the doubling of their enrolment in first year that will happen next year and that will require them to provide classroom space, to provide dormitories for students, to provide teachers, to provide the supports in terms of libraries, and the list goes on and on. There has been absolutely no indication that this government up to now understood the very heavy financial burden that will place on colleges and universities.

This year we have in the budget, yes, a commitment to giving those institutions some relief where that is concerned, but no recognition whatsoever of the fact that their budgets have been reduced so significantly over the last six or seven years that most of that money will probably be taken up with simply shoring up what they already have.

So to suggest for a second, as some members here have even as early as this morning, that somehow colleges and universities are getting some kind of a windfall here because of this budget, particularly northern colleges and universities that have had their budgets struck so viciously that they're now starving to death, some of them barely standing any more, talking about all kinds of things that we wouldn't even have considered 10 or 15 years ago in terms of things they might have to or want to or need to do to keep themselves afloat -- yes, I think they would probably welcome with open arms anybody who would be willing to come in and sit down with them and look at their books, look at the challenge they're facing and provide them with some suggestion as to things they might do to be more creative, to perhaps raise more money, and to send a message particularly to the two senior levels of government, each of them declaring over the last five or six years ever-increasing surpluses in revenues coming into their coffers, to talk to them about maybe spending some of that money in the MUSH sector and particularly, as I've said, in the colleges and universities sector.

If you look around the world today in some of those jurisdictions that are head and shoulders above everybody else where being competitive in the economy is concerned, these jurisdictions, in partnership with their umbrella organizations -- for example, the European Union and countries like Ireland and Finland -- are investing heavily in the buildup of infrastructure in municipalities to support the kind of economic activity that's now beginning to happen.

There's investment of a significant nature in colleges and universities because they know that it makes more sense to invest in the buildup of intellectual capacity. It makes more sense to invest in vehicles that will give you the cutting edge in technological change, give you the capacity to do research and development and to have students involved in that.

In Ontario, and this is where our MUSH sector becomes rather agitated and anxious and fearful, the only strategy, it seems, to make us competitive or to keep us in the mix somewhat or somehow where the North American or global economy is concerned is this issue of tax breaks, that if you give ever more and increasing tax breaks, somehow we're going to be more competitive.

I think we've seen, as indicated by what was in Monday's budget, that that approach just doesn't work. It's not being done in other jurisdictions. Although in some ways it's a little late in the game -- but better late than never -- why wouldn't we, at this time at least, as well as calling for more facility for the Provincial Auditor to move in and audit some of these struggling organizations, also sit down with them and promise that once we do the audit, we will do whatever it takes to give them the capacity they need to live up to the potential we all know they have to deliver first-class programs?

We know, and my caucus in particular knows, that if you're going to have a progressive, civil, energetic, positive and constructive jurisdiction in the world we're moving into today, we have to have at all levels, whether it be federal, provincial or municipal, government vehicles, and that speaks to what we refer to as the MUSH sector -- universities, schools, hospitals and other agencies out there -- that are well funded, not worrying about their very existence but encouraged by way of the support and resources they get to be all they can be if we're going to stay on the cutting edge and compete and provide the people who call Ontario home with the opportunities we know a jurisdiction as rich as Ontario should have for everybody concerned.

Give municipalities, universities, colleges, hospitals that need to provide health care, and those other vehicles out there, the capacity they need to make sure everybody who calls Ontario home is included in the ongoing, day-to-day life of those communities, so that they can prosper and be as viable and vital as they have in fact been in the past, but have in the last six to seven years lost some of their vitality because we're not doing that investing.

Yes, we're shifting the responsibility and the requirement of a government from the provincial to the municipal, to hospitals, to universities, to schools, to other government agencies out there in communities, to do ever more and more, and at the same time we're not providing them with the resources.

We're not providing them with the resources, not because we don't have the money but because the government -- I don't include myself in that because it wouldn't have been the choice I would have made -- has made the choice to provide tax breaks to corporations and individuals within Ontario who, in some instances -- not all -- really don't need further tax breaks at the expense of these very valuable services that would in many significant, serious and important ways provide service to more and more people, given that capacity.

In supporting the member for Kingston's very thoughtful and well-reasoned bill this morning to provide the Provincial Auditor with the ability to go in and audit those municipal, university, school and health care sectors and other government agencies, I also stand here and encourage the government, once the auditor has done his work, has reported back and pointed to shortcomings and difficulties in those sectors, to actually take their responsibility seriously and give the leadership I think everybody expected they would give when they were elected back in 1995 and again in 1999, to work with communities and people struggling in universities and colleges to keep up with the ever-increasing speed of technological change and the need to increase intellectual capacity in our communities, and to provide the resources and leadership to work in partnership, similar to a lot of the activity that we were participating in when we were government from 1990 to 1995, in some very difficult economic times, so that communities such as Sault Ste Marie, Kapuskasing, Thunder Bay and Atikokan -- and the list goes on and on -- might feel somebody understands their challenges.

I will be supporting this this morning. Our caucus will be supporting it. I will be encouraging the government not only to support it but to provide the resources necessary to back up what they find.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I appreciate the opportunity to be able to say a few words on Bill 5, which the member for Kingston and the Islands is bringing forward. It's

An Act to amend the Audit Act to insure greater accountability of hospitals, universities and colleges, municipalities and other organizations etc.

I wonder why he left out school boards when naming the others, because a significant number of dollars flow from the province to school boards. I certainly agree with the intent of this bill, but I'm left wondering why school boards were left out of this particular ballot item.

I really support the value-for-money audits. When you look at the MUSH sector -- and basically that's what's being referred to here, the MUSH sector plus other organizations. Look at what happens with some of these monopolies. There's no question that school boards are monopolies, that hospitals are monopolies and so on. Look at some of the salaries that end up getting set.

I know we're not transferring money to Hydro One and to the old Ontario Hydro. Nevertheless, it's an example of a monopoly that went awry. I'm told by some of the people in my riding that they're spelling "one" in Hydro One wrong, that it should have been Hydro Won, and indeed it did appear that way, particularly with some of the salaries that came to our attention most recently.

But I also look at some of the salaries flowing in for the CEOs of hospitals. Talk about a value-for-money audit here. It's a step more than just mismanaging the money. I think we have to look more closely at that when we have CEOs approaching a half-million dollars and then they're crying poor. They don't have to look after the medical side. They look after the plant and the running of the building. I really fail to understand why on earth they should be making that kind of money.

I enthusiastically welcome the idea of the value-for-money audit. I think way too many dollars are not being used effectively and efficiently, the hard-earned money of the taxpayers of the province of Ontario. Go out and do any poll of the people here in the province of Ontario and they'll tell you that they believe there's a lot of money being wasted within our health system. I tend to agree with them. It's awfully easy to just go out and ask for more and more funding. And this may be true in some of the other monopolies that we end up supporting.

We have indeed a very serious responsibility to our taxpayers, I think all the way through to things like our Trillium investments, which are doing a lot of good, especially in small-town Ontario. But I don't want to see that ever evolve into the HRDC fiasco of a few years ago, which the Liberal government handled so poorly going into it and then which Jane Stewart also handled extremely poorly once they were into that mess.

This kind of thing being brought forward by the member from Kingston and the Islands I certainly support. I liked the comment made by the member from Halton about the public's right to know. That's absolutely right.

I draw a comparison between the federal government and what's happening with the provincial. There, people like the auditors and the Integrity Commissioner report to the Prime Minister, not to Parliament. That's not so here. Those people in those kinds of positions report to the Legislature. It gives them a lot more freedom and less risk to their job, of course.

I just want to wind up by commenting on what the member for Sault Ste Marie said, that we should do as the auditor suggests. I would suggest to him that he have a look at the response of this government to what the auditor suggests. We follow it very closely and take it very seriously. I would suggest to him that he look back at what the NDP did when the auditor came in with reports and how they followed up.

I'll leave the rest of my time for my good friend the hard-working member from the great riding of Durham. Thanks very much for the opportunity to speak, and I enthusiastically support Bill 5.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): I'm pleased to stand this morning in support of my colleague from Kingston and the Islands and his Bill 5. As a matter of fact, I have in the members' gallery some folks from the Essex County Association for Community Living: Marilyn Briggs, Cory Muise, Tim Wilson, Lee Holling and Nancy Wallace-Gero, who also support this bill, I am sure.

Seriously, though, I do want to say that this bill comes before private members' public business as just good sense. Some 75% of the money our provincial government spends is not under the review of the Provincial Auditor. I think most people would be surprised to know that upwards of $50 billion of a $65-billion or $67-billion budget doesn't come under the review of the Provincial Auditor. I'm certainly a strong supporter of public accountability, and I think this is another step we can take, in that it will provide accountability. It will provide for the Legislature, for that matter, to have a report brought to it that gets into the area of the bulk of provincial spending.

Those agencies, boards and commissions that are being brought under this bill -- which, by the way, include school boards -- shouldn't be concerned about a visit from the Provincial Auditor. I spent 22 years of my business life as the financial officer of a company that was audited every year, and I welcomed the audit. It's an opportunity to prove how well your organization runs. And if there are areas that need to be brought up to snuff, they should welcome that advice as well.

In the nine years I've been here, I think finance ministers have supported this kind of legislation. I'm frankly not sure why it hasn't been brought forward in the past. I think the member for Niagara Falls had a bill similar to this in the past. So I doubt there is much disagreement on the principle that my colleague from Kingston and the Islands is trying to bring to the Legislature. It may be that it's a bill that should be discussed. Certainly I would welcome it if it were to come before the public accounts committee. We would have the opportunity to get input on the bill and bring to this Legislature the opportunity for accountability for some 75% of provincial expenditures.

So this morning when the vote is taken, I would encourage all members of the Legislature to support my colleague from Kingston and the Islands' Bill 5, which I think will vastly improve accountability to this Legislature for monies spent.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's my pleasure to share time again with the member from Halton, who is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance and was kind enough to allow us to make a few remarks with respect to Bill 5.

Bill 5 was introduced by Gerretsen in April 2001, just shortly after Mr Maves from Niagara Falls introduced the government's bill, which was widely accepted. I believe there is no one in this House on either side, perhaps with the exception of the NDP, who would not want to see accountability built into any mechanism of sharing funding -- that is, taxpayers' money -- with the partners, who have been referred to as the MUSH sector: municipalities, universities, schools and hospitals.

I can only refer to the efforts the government has made in working co-operatively, I might say, with the Provincial Auditor, Erik Peters. I'm a great supporter of our Provincial Auditor. I've come to know him through the public accounts committee and the estimates committee and have a lot of respect for him. I'm not in favour of an activist auditor; that is, one who politicizes the role, and I would not make that accusation of Mr Peters. I think it's a matter of keeping the politics out of it and the accountability in it.

What measures has the government taken? If I refer to the budget that the Honourable Janet Ecker introduced just this week on the 17th -- and I commend her for that, the fourth straight balanced budget. That's what the people want: they want accountability and they want us to spend within our means like you and I do in our homes.

I like the plan here on page 8 of the speech. It says, "Effective this year, our business planning process incorporates zero-based budgeting principles. Every ministry is now required to review all of its program spending over a four-year cycle to determine program effectiveness, efficiency and value for money." That's what this is about.

If I look locally at my own riding, which is a very good place to start, you have to be very conscious of the fact that the key partners I'm referring to include real people -- real people who I have a lot of respect for. I think immediately of the school boards. I think also of the measures at the local college, Durham College, and now, hopefully, the new University of Ontario, with Gary Polonsky and his staff, Don Hargest, who is the vice-president, I believe, in charge of finance. He's a very well educated, qualified person.

They have built in mechanisms there that are a good start: the key performance indicators -- the KPIs -- student satisfaction, employer satisfaction and outcomes. I would caution the post-secondary group, though, that the idea of putting money in -- sometimes some of the courses aren't really leading to effective job market skills for our young people, many of whom are here today.

I have a lot of respect for our municipal partners as well. I'd like to mention Mayor Mutton, whom I spoke with today about a measure before regional council yesterday on accountability, on spending taxpayers' money, and to Mayor Moffat as well, from Scugog township, who's also I believe a person who does want to be accountable to the taxpayers. I think there's unanimity here.

So I have great confidence in the auditor. I think they should have a role in making sure that there is wise use of taxpayers' money in the MUSH sectors -- the municipalities, universities, schools and hospitals.

No one here, in my estimation, could speak against Bill 5, Mr Gerretsen's bill, as they didn't speak against Mr Maves's bill some time ago. So it's the right thing to do. I call on all members to pay close attention.

I also want to mention that there is a parliamentary committee called a program evaluation which is chaired by Julia Munro, which was mentioned in the budget, and on that committee are Frank Mazzilli, Marilyn Mushinski, Garfield Dunlop and Wayne Wettlaufer, all members who are going to work in partnership with the Provincial Auditor, along with Rob Sampson, the member from Mississauga Centre.

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): It's a pleasure to speak on this bill, the Audit Amendment Act, that has been brought forward by my colleague from Kingston and the Islands.

There is a fundamental responsibility that I believe government must not only talk about but must act on. There has to be a political will to act on the mechanisms that ensure independent accountability. It's one thing to dictate and to suggest that accountability is only based on legislation that allows for -- let's say you can't run a deficit. That's one thing.

But this bill, in my opinion, deals with the more fundamental issue of allowing an independent audit of the sectors that expend billions of taxpayers' dollars and the whole issue of the public's right to know how the public dollars are being spent, if they're being spent in a way that you are getting value for money and also if those dollars are being spent to meet the needs that are supposed to be provided by those services. All of those things to me are its fundamental responsibility on spending public dollars.

We talk about best practices. I am really pleased to hear that the members of the government are speaking in favour of this bill, because it is in my opinion what rebuilds credibility, if you want to call it, in the area of government. Because when we talk about the word "efficiency," when we talk about the word "accountability," no one disagrees. It is only through actions and the political will to make sure those actions are pursued that we really understand if there is a true intent to act on accountability.

One of the unfortunate aspects, in my opinion, is what we see in the electricity sector. When we talk about transparency and the right of the public to know, the electricity sector is a perfect example that unfortunately has been blanketed by a cloak of secrecy since 1999. The question is, why does that happen? How does that contribute to this whole notion of what accountability is all about?

It's important, in my opinion, to have the Audit Amendment Act because of the fact that we must have access, that the Provincial Auditor must have access to the financial records of these crown corporations, because they expend billions and billions of taxpayers' dollars.

I commend the member from Kingston and the Islands and support this bill.

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): It's a great honour for me to have an opportunity to spend the final three minutes or so celebrating in the reflected glory of the member for Kingston and the Islands. It seems to me that this bill is really a motherhood bill. It is so rare on a Thursday morning that I might have the opportunity not only to share my remarks with this House, but to do so in accord with the member from Durham. It is a pleasure, a real honour, to have a chance for once to be on the same side of an issue as he is.

I think this speaks to the fact that the principle of accountability is one that matters a whole lot to all of us regardless of where we might be in terms of our philosophical orientation.

The member for Kingston and the Islands has a well-established reputation in this place for this kind of work. He's one of those folks who does an awfully effective job of making quite certain that the tax dollars that are collected, the hard-won rewards of people for their work that are collected by government are spent effectively, and that's what this bill before us today is designed to do.

I think we also should all take an opportunity to celebrate the role the Provincial Auditor plays in ensuring that those of us who have the responsibility of governing, and especially those who have the responsibility of administering public dollars, do so in a way that is consistent with value for money in the delivery of services to the taxpayer.

As someone who tends to be a little more in support of activist government, it matters a lot to me that, as people in politics, we ensure that the dollars we collect from the taxpayer are spent well. I want to make sure those dollars that we fight for, that we talk about all the time in question period and other forums, are spent as effectively as possible.

We also all need to be honest and say that in the context of a $65-billion budget, there is room for improvement. Everybody works hard to do an effective job of properly managing the trust the taxpayers provide, but when you're dealing with numbers like that, with the number of human fingerprints that come on $65 billion worth of expenditures, I think it's easy to see -- this bill is designed to ensure that the auditor, who serves us so well, has a broader range of opportunity to lend a little more guidance to us to ensure that the dollars we collect from taxpayers are being spent in the most effective and efficient way possible. I'm very honoured to support this bill.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Kingston and the Islands has two minutes to respond.

Mr Gerretsen: First of all, I'd like to thank the members from Halton, Durham, Northumberland, Scarborough-Agincourt, Essex, Sarnia-Lambton, Toronto Centre-Rosedale and Sault Ste Marie for their kind words about the bill.

If I could say one thing about what the member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale said, and chide and disagree with him just to some extent: this is not about motherhood; this is about real accountability. If it were about motherhood, it would have passed many, many years ago.

The ultimate test, should this bill pass at second reading, is what's going to happen to it next. Over the last 13 years, government after government of all three political stripes has given lip service to it. The ultimate test is, do they really want to put it into action? Of course, the reason for that is quite simple: no government likes to be criticized, and usually the reports from the Provincial Auditor criticize the management of some government services or departments. That's happened to all governments of different political stripes over the years. And let's be realistic about it: the more power you give the Provincial Auditor, the more likely it is to happen.

But ultimately we shouldn't be concerned about that. Ultimately we should be concerned about only one thing: is the money we collect as a government being expended in a wise, prudent and accountable fashion? That's what this speaks to. This speaks to the fact that all those funds -- up to 60% or 70% of the money being transferred to our hospitals, universities, colleges, municipalities and all the other recipient agencies -- aren't being expended wisely.

They shouldn't feel threatened by this. As a matter of fact, they should welcome it as being the best way to show the general public that they really want to spend the taxpayers' money in the best way possible.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allocated for debate on ballot item number 52.

SKILLS TRAINING

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now deal with ballot item number 51.

Mr Curling has moved private member's notice of motion number 6. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

AUDIT AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA VÉRIFICATION

DES COMPTES PUBLICS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now deal with ballot item number 52.

Mr Gerretsen has moved second reading of Bill 5. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96, this bill will be referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Gerretsen: Mr Speaker, I request that the bill be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Gerretsen has asked that this bill be sent to the public accounts committee. Is it agreed? Agreed.

All matters relating to private members' public business now being complete, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1203 to 1330.

WEARING OF PINS

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In recognition of Community Living Day in Ontario, and in recognition of all those who have joined us today in the Legislature, I would ask that unanimous consent be given to wear the Living Life, Living Proof pin.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WORKERS' MEMORIAL DAY

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Today in my city there was a significant community event. The Mine-Mill CAW union held its annual workers' memorial day service. This day is in recognition of the anniversary of the June 20, 1984, mine tragedy at Falconbridge. It's a day we spend remembering workers.

At 10:12 am there is a moment of silence. We not only remember Soolow Korpela, Richard Chenier, Daniel Lavallee and Wayne St Michel, who died, we also reflect upon the good things in life we have, to plan for a better tomorrow and to remember our families and friends, those of us who have families and friends who have passed away tragically in the workplace.

We value life at this celebration and we remember the health and safety member commitment, which says, "Asking me to overlook a simple safety violation would be asking me to compromise my entire attitude toward the value of your life."

This is a significant community event. I was with them in spirit. This is the first one I have missed. We all know occupational health and safety is of utmost importance.

VOLUNTEERS IN SAULT STE MARIE

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I stand today to put before the House the wonderful contribution two citizens of my community have made over a number of years. These two people have recently retired and will be missed.

Carmen Borghese and Charlotte Mandolesi are exemplary in their commitment and contribution to their work and to the volunteer sector of Sault Ste Marie. Carmen was the executive director of the United Way, and Charlotte was the executive director of the volunteer bureau connected with the United Way. The very nature of their work should speak to all of us in terms of the commitment, time and energy both these people put into making our community better.

Carmen, supported by his wonderful wife, Donna, and Charlotte by her husband, Richard, gave of their time without thought to themselves and contributed in ways that go above and beyond, both of them driven primarily by their faith, by their connection to their church and their belief in a higher purpose to the work we all do.

Today I stand to say to Carmen, Charlotte, Donna and Richard, all the best in your retirement, that you might have good health and fortune. You will be remembered.

Hon John R. Baird (Associate Minister of Francophone Affairs): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to ask for unanimous consent if we could wear, in the House, community living buttons supporting community living.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We already did that. It's totally acceptable.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): Today I am particularly delighted to say hello to my friends in the gallery from the Ontario Association for Community Living. I also want to express the Ernie Eves government's support for people with developmental disabilities.

This was reflected most recently in Monday's budget, which follows through on the government's five-year, $197-million plan and commitment to enhance services for people with intellectual disabilities. I'm very proud that the Ernie Eves government is investing in the success of organizations like the Ontario Association for Community Living.

I am delighted to play a small role in promoting the very admirable goal of ensuring that every person in this province lives with dignity. This is a goal that the Ontario Association for Community Living has embraced and done much to bring about. I congratulate all the volunteers across our province for their inspired work and dedication.

The Ontario Association for Community Living has helped our communities for over 50 years. From their modest beginning, they have grown to more than 12,000 members in 100 local associations across Ontario. Their staff and volunteers have touched the lives of many people in each of our ridings. They deserve the praise of MPPs on all sides of the House.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): Three cheers for the Toronto public school board, whose trustees unanimously rejected the $90 million of cuts foisted upon Toronto schools by the Harris-Eves government's broken funding formula and chronic underfunding. I stand four-square behind those courageous trustees and the thousands of families that have supported the Toronto school trustees' defiance of mediocrity.

A resounding boo to the Harris-Eves government for its preposterous funding formula and education policy that has forced the Toronto board into this unprecedented political statement.

To make matters worse, I learned last night at a Humewood school council meeting that Humewood will lose its vice-principal because enrolment at the school on one day last year fell one student short of the 450 students needed to qualify for a vice-principal, notwithstanding that the current enrolment is well above that mark. So the need for a vice-principal is there, but because of inflexible Tory formulae, the need is not met.

I'm told by families in this community that this kind of bizarre and ludicrous inflexibility in government criteria will likely mean the loss of important programs, like the lunchtime milk program, and less attention to disciplinary issues and disruptive behaviour typically handled by a vice-principal.

This led one constituent to write me, asking, "Can't we aim a little higher than the mediocrity that we are headed for? I have the highest standards and expectations for my children."

Well, so you do, say I, and so you should. So should your government, but it does not. So should the people hold this government to account, and so shall we for what they've done to Ontario classrooms and Ontario's working families.

SIBBALD POINT PROVINCIAL PARK

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I rise today to speak about one of Georgina's popular summer attractions, Sibbald Point Provincial Park. Last year the park attracted 333,000 people. The park has more than 900 campsites; one of the longest public beaches on Lake Simcoe; picnic areas; boat launch facilities and rentals; hiking trails; docks for mooring, fishing and swimming; a store and restaurant; and the unique Eildon Hall museum. The most recent attraction is the Maidenhair Fern Trail, which opened last year.

The park is also headquarters for the Ministry of Natural Resources Lake Simcoe fisheries unit that studies the lake's fish population.

The park is going to promote more spring and fall use for those who have bigger trailer units. They are also planning to extend the season past Thanksgiving to mid-November. This move would likely attract more retirees who travel around Canada and the United States in the bigger trailer units.

Sibbald Park also hosts many special events. This weekend, the annual fundraising law enforcement ride for the prevention of child abuse will take place on Saturday, June 22. About 200 police officers will take

part in the motorcycle ride. Other events include Canada Day celebrations on July 1, a family fishing weekend on July 6-7 and the historical ghost walk at Eildon Hall on July 17.

This provincial park is part of our government's Living Legacy program, where we have added more parkland than any government in this province. This legacy is something that will live on for future generations to enjoy and appreciate the natural beauty of our province.

OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): Last fall I rose in the Legislature to question then Labour Minister Chris Stockwell about the alarming number of cases of silicosis that were occurring in the Hemlo gold mines in my riding. While I much appreciated the minister's response to me and his visit to Marathon to meet with affected workers, I feel compelled to rise once again to call for more serious action by this government related to this disturbing and serious problem.

The fact is we have a clear disagreement between the ministry, represented by the WSIB, and the affected workers, represented by their doctors, as to whether silicosis is the correct diagnosis. As a result, workers are left in a frightening state of limbo, with no real guarantee that they will receive needed and appropriate benefits. Clearly, simple humanity requires that this be resolved. Regardless of the diagnosis, these are people who have clearly contacted an occupational disease as a result of their work in the mines.

In an attempt to resolve this issue, I am calling on Labour Minister Clark today to convene a public inquiry into the situation at Hemlo. We need to get to the truth as to what is happening there, something that I hope the minister would agree is necessary. It seems to me that an inquiry may be the only way to find that truth, but regardless, these workers should not be left in the lurch. Therefore, I'm also calling on Minister Clark to enact legislation such as recently has been done in Manitoba for firefighters that recognizes the prevalence of specific occupational diseases to which miners may fall prey.

Surely, the least we can do is to provide these hard-working people with appropriate benefits if they become ill without asking them to fight the system in order to get that help.

ASSOCIATIONS FOR

COMMUNITY LIVING

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the House today to introduce my colleagues to the representatives from the Central Seven Association for Community Living who are in attendance. They are participating in Community Living Day here at Queen's Park.

By way of background, the association began in 1967, when a group of parents and friends got together to operate a school on Scugog Island for children with developmental disabilities. Today, some 30-plus years later, Central Seven staff, board and volunteers offer supportive independent living programs, group homes, family programs, day programs, job development and respite services.

Unfortunately, time does not permit me to mention each guest; however, I would like to commend the president of the board, Pam Domingos, and the board executive, including director Glenn Taylor, the staff and volunteers.

I'd also like to pay tribute to the Oshawa/Clarington Association for Community Living. Next year, the association celebrates its 50th year. Like Central Seven, it was started by parents who knew their sons and daughters would live in the community with supports. Their parents and friends worked to make a dream reality. I commend William Carson, president of the board of directors, the board members, executive director Steve Finlay, staff, parents and volunteers responsible for the success of this association. For almost 50 years, Community Living in Oshawa-Clarington has worked to support individuals as they live, learn, work and participate fully in our community.

I trust that, in addition to raising awareness, today is also a time to recognize the progress that has been made to ensure Ontario is a place where everyone belongs. We must rededicate ourselves to continuing the advancement of this worthy cause. I thank the staff, the parents and the individuals involved here for making life better for those with developmental disabilities.

WORKPLACE FATALITIES

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): Pat Dillon, business manager of the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, and I are outraged that Halton region is considering a bid by North America Construction Ltd to upgrade the Kelso pumping station in Milton. The company was recently convicted of negligence in the death of two construction workers by the Ontario Court for operating unsafe construction equipment.

On May 27, 2002, North America Construction Ltd of Campbellville, Ontario, was found guilt of using defective or hazardous equipment contrary to the regulation for construction projects and

section 25 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Court documents from the trial indicate that the crane being used by North America Construction at the mid-Halton waste water project in June 2000 was "in a defective or hazardous condition."

The $220,000 fine given to this company last month in the death of Darren Leon and Jose Alves amounted to a slap on the wrist for one of Canada's largest municipal water treatment and sewage plant contractors. The contract for this project alone was worth an estimated $21 million.

Minister, are we going to allow these companies to get away with murder? Corporate directors of these companies should be forced to take direct responsibility for these workplace deaths. They should not be allowed to plea bargain for reduced sentences and insignificant fines. Fines must be harsh to force companies to comply with the existing health and safety regulations. Fines like the one handed down to North American Construction aren't a deterrent; they simply represent the cost of doing business.

Halton region should look into these deaths and consider whether they award these future contracts.

FEDERAL HEALTH SPENDING

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): First, I'd like to extend my congratulations to my son, Spencer, and his classmates, who are graduating tonight from Miss Cara and Miss Jen's Little Peoples Nursery School. I'm sorry I can't be there.

The federal Liberal finance minister, John Manley, delivered an economic statement yesterday reiterating a federal surplus of $6