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

June 3, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-Jun-03 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 3 June 2004 Jeudi 3 juin 2004

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

AND SECURITY GUARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES ENQUÊTEURS PRIVÉS

ET LES GARDIENS

ONTARIO WORKERS'

MEMORIAL ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LE MONUMENT COMMÉMORATIF

DES TRAVAILLEURS DE L'ONTARIO

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

AND SECURITY GUARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES ENQUÊTEURS PRIVÉS

ET LES GARDIENS

ONTARIO WORKERS'

MEMORIAL ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LE MONUMENT COMMÉMORATIF

DES TRAVAILLEURS DE L'ONTARIO

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

AND SECURITY GUARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES ENQUÊTEURS PRIVÉS

ET LES GARDIENS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SUNSET HEIGHTS PUBLIC SCHOOL

STRATFORD FESTIVAL

AGRICULTURE PROGRAMS

BRAIN INJURY AWARENESS MONTH

ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY

VISUDYNE TREATMENT

EDUCATION FUNDING

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

PROTECTION OF EASTERN WOLF

NURSES

PROTECTION OF EASTERN WOLF

NURSES

ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY /

ANNIVERSAIRE DU JOUR J

HANSARD REPORTING SERVICE

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO BUDGET

BUDGET SECURITY

TAXATION

HEALTH PREMIUMS

CANCER TREATMENT

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

POLICE OFFICERS

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

NURSES

HEALTH SERVICES /

SERVICES DE SANTÉ

COMMUNITY USE OF SCHOOLS

TOBACCO GROWERS

FINANCEMENT DE L'ÉDUCATION

PETITIONS

TAXATION

BENEFIT AND PENSION INDEXATION

DISABILITY BENEFITS

TILLSONBURG DISTRICT

MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

LCBO OUTLET

PROPERTY TAXATION

AJAX-PICKERING HOSPITAL

SEWAGE SLUDGE

WATER QUALITY

PRIMARY CARE

FISH HATCHERY PROGRAM

TENANT PROTECTION

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

COMMITMENT TO THE FUTURE

OF MEDICARE ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR L'ENGAGEMENT

D'ASSURER L'AVENIR

DE L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

AND SECURITY GUARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES ENQUÊTEURS PRIVÉS

ET LES GARDIENS

Mr Dunlop moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 88,

An Act to amend the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act / Projet de loi 88, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les enquêteurs privés et

les gardiens.

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

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm very pleased to have this opportunity this early in the Parliament to bring forward my private member's

bill. I want to thank a number of people for that opportunity, including many of the stakeholders.

My private member's bill relates to my critic's position. As you know, I'm the critic for community safety and correctional services. It's an area that I

particularly enjoy working with because I have a lot of security and correctional facilities in my area, including the Ontario Provincial Police general headquarters, and I get to work a lot with

the OPPA, the correctional facilities and, of course, the Police Association of Ontario. It's an area I believe in very strongly. Although as governments we all have priorities where money should

be spent, I'm a person who believes that money has to be spent on law and order as one of the number one areas. Without law and order, we can't have a province with a good education system, a good

health care system and all the other services that people in our province expect their governments to provide.

With that, I looked at all the different issues last fall when I was asked to handle this particular portfolio, and I spotted immediately that security guards

and private investigators certainly was an area that needed a lot of reform.

I'd like to put on the record a few of the comments I received last fall from the different areas.

One, of course, was from the Police Association of Ontario. I'm very pleased this morning that Bruce Miller, the executive director of the Police Association of

Ontario, is in the gallery with us. I'd like to acknowledge Bruce and thank him for his support on this particular bill.

In my time, I want to put this on the record, and a couple of other things as well.

First of all: "The Police Association of Ontario ... was founded in 1933 and is the official voice and representative body for Ontario's front-line police

personnel, and provides representation, resource and support for 63 police associations. Our membership is comprised of over 21,000 police and civilian members of police services.

"The Police Association of Ontario promotes the mutual interests of Ontario's front-line police personnel in order to uphold the honour of the police profession

and elevate the standards of police services....

"The PAO appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act. Our organization has serious concerns over the lack of

regulation of the industry. We believe that private security performs many important functions and as such must be subject to regulations and standards in order to ensure community safety.

"The PAO is concerned with the rapid growth of such an unregulated industry. The private security industry has experienced dramatic uncontrolled growth in the

past 35 years, from 4,600 licensed private investigators and security guards in Ontario in 1967 to 28,000 in 2002."

I think those are important things to have on the record -- the growth of this industry alone.

Second, I want to point out from the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, again from November of last year, their concerns on the Private Investigators and

Security Guards Act. The comment on that is as follows:

"Private security and investigative industries are rapidly expanding and require regulation to ensure that the interests of the public will be adequately served

and protected. Untrained persons, unlicensed persons or businesses, or persons who are not of good moral character engaged in the private security, investigative and recovery industries are a

threat to the welfare of the public.

"OACP agrees that regulation of licensed and unlicensed persons engaged in the business of private investigations and security guards has not kept pace with the

expansion/changes in the industry and totally supports reform to current regulations and legislation. There is a recognized need to develop minimum provincial standards for the selection and

training of all private security officers whether they are proprietary or contract. The development of minimum standards enhances the ability of Ontario companies to protect the province's

infrastructure, enables the private security industry to better interact with public safety personnel in reducing and preventing crime, especially in the wake of the new reality of security today,

post-terrorism of September 11, 2001."

Following on that, we've seen the report of the inquiry into the death of Patrick Shand, which involved security guards. There are two recommendations I will

read that are very important. But I want to point out that the bill is all-encompassing. It covers all the recommendations of the Shand inquiry. I want to point out that I understand the Minister

of Correctional Services is intending at some point to bring forth a piece of legislation. I think the Shand inquiry distinctly asked that it be done immediately, and I will put that on record.

The first recommendation on amending the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act:

"The Private Investigators and Security Guards Act ... should be amended to remove the licensing exemption that presently exists for `proprietary' or in-house

security practitioners and members of the Corps of Commissionaires. This amendment will provide for mandatory licensing for all privately employed individuals who, for hire or reward, guard or

patrol for the purpose of protecting persons or property in Ontario (security practitioners). This amendment is not intended to affect the regulation of armoured car companies or armoured car

personnel."

The rationale for that is: "The current act was passed in 1966." That's almost 40 years ago. "The world and the security industry have changed dramatically since

that time. To illustrate, there are now some 50,000 persons employed in the security industry, half of whom are unregulated. Every person employed as a security professional should be licensed by

the province. In 1966 most security practitioners were watchmen; today they provide a wide variety of services with significant interaction with the public, especially in shopping malls, hospitals,

entertainment venues and other locales."

The second recommendation is the need for urgent change, and that's clearly identified in the Shand report: "We recommend that the Private Investigators and

Security Guards Act (the `act') be amended as soon as possible."

The rationale for that is: "While it is important that all that stakeholders are consulted, the ministry has had many years to consult. When this act was passed

in 1966, John Robarts was the Premier of the province and since that time there have been seven more Premiers." Nothing has been done. "Any remaining consultation process should be expedited so

that further delays in amendments to the act are avoided. It seems that the issues should already be well known and the ministry should be able to proceed quickly.

"If there are issues that cannot be resolved in the short term, a phased implementation may be appropriate." I hope everyone will listen to that.

"It is important that the government act quickly, responsibly and diligently."

That basically sums it up. There are 20 other recommendations in this. I know a couple of the speakers today -- Mr Runciman, a former Solicitor General, will be

speaking to the bill on behalf of our caucus; and I understand Mr Levac, a former critic for community safety and corrections, will also be speaking. But the fact of the matter is that this is a

piece of legislation we have put a lot of work into, and I hope people will acknowledge that.

We thank all the stakeholders we've dealt with in trying to provide this bill to the public. We think it's very important to bring it forward. It's a bill that I

would love to see incorporated in a government bill, but I think it deserves the opportunity to go to some type of committee hearing, hopefully justice and social policy. This is a bill that will

enhance services and community safety here in our great province.

Again, I want to thank the Police Association of Ontario, who are very strong advocates of seeing this bill put forward. As you know, you often see vehicles on

the roads of our province, and many times these are security guard types of vehicles. These are not police officers. They are not trained, professional police officers -- people who are members of

organizations like the Police Association of Ontario and the Toronto Police Service -- so it is important that we address this. As I said earlier, it has been since 1966; there's no reason right

now for anyone to say the minister will bring this bill forward. We've had almost 40 years to bring bills forward, and I think this bill deserves an opportunity to advance to another level. I'd ask

that all members of this House support this and give it a chance to be debated. It's something, along with Mr Wilkinson's Bill 40. Where is Mr Wilkinson? Oh, he's not here today. It's like Bill 40:

We support it because it's good for community safety; it's good for the people who protect the people of the province for community safety; and it's good for law and order.

With that, I thank all the members of the House who will be speaking to this. I look forward to it. I can't stay around for all the speeches, but I'll be

watching them on my TV screen in my office for a while. Thank you very much for this opportunity.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I want to calm the waters for the member opposite and let him know that I, during this private members' time, will be

supporting his bill, and to start right off and let him know that I think it's an appropriate bill that needs to be debated and needs to be discussed, and I will encourage my colleagues to support

it as well. I will also encourage my colleagues to get it to committee so we can get this done quickly.

Having said that, I want to review a few things for him, and I know he would appreciate this very deeply. One, in 2001, 2002 and 2003, I introduced a bill that

would require a minimum level of training and licensing of security guards, and it was considered to be an action bill presented by the Dalton McGuinty team, in opposition at that time. We would

require that applicants for licensing as private investigators and security guards have a minimum level of training, to provide what they can and can't do as security guards and that they not have

an action of a police officer. We were supported at that time by the police association, the OPPA, the chiefs of police and many of the stakeholders out there -- acknowledging the presence of Bruce

Miller here with us today. These are other examples of actions we took even before the Shand report.

I would also suggest to you that in terms of what you're asking us to do in the bill, there are some very good ideas here, but I would offer the member some

suggestions. I know that he and I spoke about this and that he would be more than willing and likes the idea of it getting to committee so we can write the right bill, the proper bill.

There's an area that I would suggest to him maybe, if he's taking notes: denial of licensing. In the provisions of your bill, there is no denial of licensing.

There are opportunities and times when we do not want people to have licences to be security guards because of their particular background. We should be denying them licensing.

How training should be delivered is important for us to get right -- those organizations that provide the types of training that we're talking about in this

particular field. I'll use a personal example in my riding. Mohawk College, Brantford campus, has over 600 candidates who are studying for this type of opportunity. That type of organization should

be able to provide that type of training.

The complaints commission: I recall another bill I introduced in this House to take care of problems that were leaking information from all ministries. This

commission, it seems to me right now, with a brief look at what you're asking, is a duplication of the registrar. I'm wondering whether we should even be having the commission you're asking

for.

There was another area you struck on that I thought was very creative, and I compliment you on that, and that is where people with disabilities can still enter

the field. I think that's an appropriate approach that usually doesn't get looked at, so I compliment the member on that. I think that with a good, solid Ontarians with Disabilities Act, we'd be

able to cover that off to ensure that people who have disabilities can still enter that field.

So I am complimentary on some of the areas you're proposing, and I think that in terms of coroner's jury report, some of those things are being dealt with in

your bill, and I compliment you on that.

You had some concerns as to whether the government is moving quickly enough on this. Just so we know on the record, on the day the Shand report was released, the

Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services committed to updating the act to improve the regulation of private security guards and investigators in this province. Since that time, we've

had the discussion paper issued. I know you're aware of it and you know that those are the questions we're asking within this.

I would also suggest to you that the ministry has taken your bill very seriously, and they're looking at all the points you're raising in terms of what the

coroner's report indicated. Also, quite frankly, we're very impressed with the fact that it looks like we're going to get all-party support on updating

an act that hasn't been updated since 1966. I

don't think there should be any law on the books that hasn't been looked at since 1966. Quite frankly, we need to take a look at that.

I know that you know too that there are some other rules and regulations that exist differentiating between police officers. Inside of that, in my bill I

recommended that we take a look at copycat badges, copycat insignia, copycat cars and copycat uniforms; I know my friend opposite in the third party, Mr Kormos, and I have had these discussions in

the past, as far back as 2001. And since you've been here a few years longer than me, I believe you probably had that in your mind before, and I think it has been discussed before.

So are we on the right track? Absolutely. Are we doing the right thing by looking at a bill that's going to make things better for us in this province, safer,

more secure, because of the things that have happened in the last few years? Absolutely. Will we be supporting this bill? I know I'm going to be supporting this bill, and I make it quite clear all

the time that we always include in this a discussion of the safety and security of our citizens.

One last point I would like to make to him: We had examples several times that I brought up in 2001. We literally had security guards in their cars, with their

flashing lights on, running up and down main streets. Police departments were getting phone calls saying, "How dare you let your police officers drive like that in our community?" Quite frankly,

they were getting blamed for things that security guards -- "run amok security guards," I'll call them -- were getting away with.

So we will be supporting the bill -- I will be supporting the bill, and I've got indications that quite a few of us will be supporting the bill. I look forward

to its getting to committee, and I thank you very much for introducing this bill a fifth time.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate related to the bill tabled by the member for

Simcoe North, Mr Dunlop. I want to say at the outset that he is a colleague, of course, but beyond that, I think he is doing an outstanding job, not only of representing his riding and his

constituents, but being an advocate for the stakeholders who fall under the umbrella of the Minister of Community Safety. He has reached out and is in constant contact with all of the interest

groups, anyone who has a stake, if you will, on the activities and initiatives -- and failure to act in some instances -- of the Ministry of Community Safety and corrections. I don't think the

policing community could find a better friend in terms of standing up for their interests and standing up for the whole question and issues surrounding public safety in Ontario.

So I want to compliment him on this fine initiative to table this legislation, the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act. This, as I think he and the

previous presenter indicated, is

an act that calls out for revamping and change to recognize the conditions that have been dramatically altered since the original legislation was passed some 35

years ago. Clearly it hasn't been updated to adjust to some of the new realities and responsibilities that have been assumed by the security guard industry and, as a result of those assumptions of

responsibilities, some of the issues that have been raised surrounding that. We heard about uniforms, about the kinds of badges and the cars that are utilized, and the implication for the public,

that in many instances they think they're dealing with a police officer when in fact it's a security guard who may not have had even basic training related to the challenges that could be faced by

a community, a neighbourhood, an individual. So that is a concern that I've certainly heard over the years.

Last year, when I was in that particular ministry, we initiated a review of this act with the clear goal of moving ahead with legislative changes this year. Our

critic, Mr Dunlop, has taken the bull by the horns here. I think it's wise that he is laying the table here, if you will, with respect to this, rather than waiting for the government to move.

Essentially, the Liberal government has no agenda with respect to community safety or policing.

What the minister has indicated he will do related to this act is based on an initiative begun by the former government. So we know they have no agenda. We know

that anything that is accomplished in a positive sense really had its origins in the former Conservative government. Of course we've seen some announcements that flowed from initiatives undertaken

by the former government.

Some initiatives are cause for concern. I guess I can be critical in the sense of not having an agenda and looking for new initiatives, but at the same time,

given some of the things that they have moved on, it makes you nervous if you care about public safety and security in the province. I cite as an example, when we were in office last year,

effective August 1, we were moving phase 1 young offenders under the responsibility of the Ministry of Corrections. That made sense to virtually everyone except some folks on the left of the

spectrum who have a different view of how young offenders, regardless of the degree of crime that they've been involved in, should all be treated as victims.

So what we saw, very quickly after the new government was formed, was a change in direction where the Liberal government formed a children's ministry. Instead of

going along with the plans which were well underway -- thousands of dollars had been spent on this -- because of a political ideology that young offenders are victims, they pulled back on that. All

of the young offenders now fall under a children's ministry.

I can respect in some instances that may be an appropriate landing spot for some of these folks, especially with first-time offenders and those who are of a

certain age, but when you're talking about some of the 16- and 17-year-old repeat offenders, these are hardened criminals. If you visited some of our corrections facilities, I don't think you'd

want to spend a couple hours in a lock-up with some of these folks. They've lived very difficult lives, and some of them haven't lived very difficult lives. For a variety of reasons they've

committed crimes, and some of them very, very serious crimes, including sexual assault and murder.

Now the Liberal government, in its lack of wisdom, has said that these people should be the responsibility of a children's ministry; let's treat these folks with

kid gloves. That is a cause for concern.

Going back to Mr Dunlop's comments related to the security guards act and Minister Kwinter's response to the inquest findings that, "Yes, we're going to move

ahead with legislation in the fall," essentially this was the intent of the previous government prior to the inquest results. Certainly we're hopeful, we're optimistic, listening to the comments of

the government whip, that this will pass today and will go to committee. I'm sure the member will be receptive to friendly and helpful amendments to his legislation.

I think there is a concern, and I think that's one of the reasons Mr Dunlop has brought in his own legislation to drive this issue, to make sure that, in fact,

the government does move, and that it's reflective of the concerns of all of the stakeholders that Mr Dunlop has taken the time to listen to and recognize those concerns and embody them in his

legislation.

Again, I want to hark back to the concern that the Liberal government may not move on this. I have a great deal of respect for the minister, Mr Kwinter. He has

been someone I've considered a friend over the years. But when you get into this opposition and government role that we all have to play -- and those of us who have been around for a number of

years have played it on both sides of the House -- it's a difficult to thing to deal with, with friendship and the responsibilities you have as well.

In the last year or so Mr Kwinter, as a critic from the opposition side, was, I thought, some of us thought, out of character in some of his harsh criticisms of

the government. I think if you recall, he was especially vigorously attacking Mr Flaherty, the member for the Oshawa-Durham area. Now that he is in government he has assumed some very serious

responsibilities. People don't realize that the ministry Mr Kwinter is responsible for is the largest ministry in government in terms of employees. It has a budget in the neighbourhood of $1.6

billion or $1.7 billion. It's a big ministry with a great many responsibilities, and you can come into the office in the morning and find that you have a list of issues on your plate as long as

your arm.

So I respect him for taking on this challenge, but at the same time he has to appreciate and understand that in that role he is going to be subject to criticism

from the opposition, from the public, from stakeholders and others. The reality is, you have to have broad shoulders, and in that ministry especially you have to have broad shoulders. Certainly I

suffered the slings and arrows of what you think in many respects is undue criticism in that ministry, especially on the corrections side. But it's something you have to come to grips with and deal

with, and I understand the minister has been upset by some of the opposition criticisms. I understand and respect that, but at the same time he should reflect back on some of the comments he and

his colleagues have made over the years. It's part and parcel of the business we've all chosen to engage in. It can sometimes be a little rough and a little unpleasant, and that's a side of it none

of us likes, but we have to participate in it.

So I have great concern about what's happening in the ministry that I so deeply care about, the people who work in that ministry and the fact that, in my view,

this is not a priority for the Liberal government. Mr Kwinter, as an experienced minister, has been put in that spot, in my view, to calm the waters, to ensure that if any difficulties arise over

the next couple of years someone with his experience can deal with them in a reasonable fashion and keep the government out of trouble. That's going to be difficult to do because it is such a

difficult ministry to keep a handle on everything that could happen from any day.

Clearly, there is no agenda. I think our member will be talking about the commitment for 1,000 new cops. We don't see that happening. Certainly, it's not even

referenced in the budget that was tabled May 18, so we're very dubious that it's going to happen, although we heard the culture minister stand in her place and say that she has money for a language

cop to ensure that the language laws of the province are being carefully adhered to: money for a language cop, but no money for front-line police officers. That is passing strange and certainly

would raise serious issues about the priorities of the Liberal government. I think it's more Liberal social engineering, which we've become used to, but I was hopeful that it wouldn't dominate the

agenda of the current government, that they would move on issues like the bill to revamp the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act.

When you look at this bill, so many of the components of it just make good common sense: mandatory multi-level training; standards for the use of force and

firearms in making arrests; different classes in portability of licences.

Again, you can look at some of the folks who are guards in the Brinks trucks, for example. That's a significant responsibility. Those folks can be faced with

very difficult challenges, as we all know looking back over the history of North America with respect to armoured vehicles and the challenges and some of the casualties that those security guards

have suffered as a result of their chosen profession. It should be a profession, I think, when you look at the level of responsibilities.

Going down the line, when you're providing guardhouse security at a particular neighbourhood or an industrial complex: Again, those are the sorts of things for

which graduated licensing, if you will, makes a lot of sense -- where you don't have to meet the same standard of tests that someone who is a Brinks security guard should be able to meet. They are

people who carry side arms, and in some instances, may be forced to use those side arms.

What the member is talking about makes so much sense, in terms of uniforms, vehicles, the kinds of identification badges that are utilized by security guards so

that the public know when they're dealing with a police officer and when they're dealing with someone who is not a police officer, but in fact is a member of the security industry.

Again, with respect to this legislation and why this member's moving ahead, we are concerned about this government and its lack of agenda in this area. We saw

them remove the word "security" from the ministry name; one of the first things they did when they took over the government. We've heard Mr Kwinter stand in his place and say, "Security is the

responsibility of the federal government, and we have confidence in the federal government." Well, it's a shared responsibility. Security, especially border security, is a significant concern and

should be a significant priority for the government of the day. When we look at over one million jobs in this province depending on ease of access to the US markets, we can't afford to have a

terrorist incident that originates in this province and then realize the devastating impact on our economy and the ripple effect that would have on the Canadian economy.

Thank you for this opportunity.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): First, right off the bat, on behalf of the NDP caucus, I want to make it very clear that we support the

legislation. We look forward -- I certainly look forward and I know my colleagues do -- Andrea Horwath from Hamilton East sitting here with me in this Legislature -- over the course of this debate

to seeing this go to committee. I think this is a very important beginning. I think it is substantial -- but still, warrants being fleshed out and perhaps made more comprehensive than it is.

Again, it's overdue. Let's understand what gives rise to this. One is the increase in the privatization of policing, especially over the course of the last

nine years. It's true. Mr Bradley knows, because he knows that we saw the last government, the Conservatives, download on to municipalities and reduce their support for municipalities. One of the

fundamental flaws around public policing now is that policing is mandated provincially, yet municipalities have to carry the cost of policing on the base of their property taxes, which are becoming

increasingly strained. Ms Horwath is intimate with this, in view of her long-time experience on Hamilton city council and the incredible difficulties Hamilton -- and any other community in this

province -- has had, especially over the course of the last nine years. Quite frankly, I don't want to isolate or distinguish the last nine years from the next four, because the pattern that was

established by the Tories is certainly being maintained by the oh, so very conservative McGuinty Liberals.

The phenomenon of privatization of policing: I make reference to Mr Bradley because I recall raising in this Legislature some years ago now the phenomenon of

one business improvement area having to utilize private policing because of the legitimate concern about the inadequacy of local policing, not because those police officers weren't committed or

interested or dedicated enough to do the job, but because they were so dramatically and pathetically understaffed and under-resourced.

It's trite to say that communities must not only be safe but they also must perceive themselves to be safe. My concern about the levels of staffing with

respect to public police forces -- bona fide, legitimate police forces -- is that police associations have been ignored (1) by their local services boards and (2) by the provincial government in

terms of the need for improved staffing resources. The sad reality is that we continue to have fewer cops per capita on our streets than we did 10 years ago, back in 1994.

Now we have a proliferation of private police forces, and it should be of concern, because let's understand that private police forces are not subject to what

is and what should be the rigorous governance of publicly elected and/or publicly appointed police services boards nor to the volume of legislation that governs police activities. So we should be

very concerned about this growth of privatized police. New Democrats endorse the proposition that persons fulfilling these privatized policing roles should be adequately trained and -- I will say

it, yes -- regulated and licensed.

We've seen and heard reference over the course of the last few minutes to the recent coroner's inquest here in the city of Toronto. Let's make this very clear:

We can't legitimately expect these private police forces and their staff to meet new and higher standards if they continue to be paid at the abysmally low pay rates that that work/job ghetto has

been inclined to pay. Let's say it right up front. These private security personnel are among the lowest-paid people in our communities. So we can't on the one hand call on them to have better

training and call on them to have attended any number of community college programs. The member for Brant speaks of the community college program that he's familiar with. I am very familiar with

the Niagara College law and security programs and similar programs that do an excellent job of training people, but, by God, I'm not going to tell a young woman or man to go to Niagara College for

two or three years and then go out there and get a crummy $8.25 job, thank you very much.

The Liberals' pathetic inaction on minimum wage did nothing to address that issue -- a bloody embarrassment and an assault on low-income workers across this

province. For a bunch of people whose minimum wage here is $85,000 a year, and all but a handful, all but four Liberal caucus members earning anywhere from $6,000 to $12,000 to $13,000 to $20,000

to $25,000 in addition -- to tell minimum wage workers, "Oh, here's a few cents. Here's less than the price of a coffee. Go home and be quiet." So I say, if we're going to talk about ensuring that

security personnel working for private firms out there in the public field are going to be better trained, are going to have to meet higher and consistent standards, we've also got to make sure

that they're better paid.

That takes us to the third issue: ensuring that these workers are unionized. I am proud of my sisters and brothers in the trade union movement, United

Steelworkers amongst them -- not solely, but amongst them -- who have participated in the organization of them by security staff of trade unions, so that they can collectively bargain for better

wages, wages that better reflect the skills that they're expected to have and better reflect the real needs of any worker, quite frankly.

The issue of pay, of course, is immediately related to unionization because unionized workers are better-paid workers, make no mistake about it. Quite frankly,

on average, unionized workers make $5 an hour more than non-unionized workers. You know my position. My position is very clear. The NDP's position is very clear. It's never wrong for workers to

fight for better wages. What's wrong is a government that keeps its boot, that keeps its heel on the lowest-paid workers in this province and mocks them by tossing them a few cents in terms of an

increase in minimum wage, while the minimum wage here is over $85,000 a year.

The issue around copycat cruisers, copycat uniforms is a real one. New Democrats believe that there have to be standards which clearly distinguish the uniforms

and the tools of private security forces, private police officers, from those of public police officers. But I want to make it very clear: We're not talking about putting private security officers

in outlandish clothing or in anything that denigrates them or subjects them to ridicule. To do so would be disrespectful of the role that they play out there in private workplaces, in shopping

malls and any number of places like that.

But I put this to all the members of this assembly, especially these Liberals here, these Liberal backbenchers so numerous: If you're really concerned about

the issues being raised in Bill 88, if you really care, then you're going --

Interjection.

Mr Kormos: Look, you can't do this in isolation. If you really care about security in our community, you're going to give the communities in

this province the resources to invest in public policing.

We have scenarios down where I come from. Mr Bradley's there too; he knows full well. I've talked about it before. If the crooks only knew how few police

officers we have on some of our evening shifts, it would be a free-for-all.

Niagara's not unique, especially in communities where you've got rural areas, never mind the north, where you've got huge expanses. You've got some pitifully

low numbers of cars out on the street at any given point in time. The Niagara Region Police Association is the first to identify this. People complain about inadequate response times.

Well, if this government, like the last, continues to underfund police forces in this province, it's going to get worse before it gets better. If this

government continues to underfund public police forces across the province, there is going to be a huge price to be paid, not just in the fear that accompanies the perception of the inadequacy of

public safety, but in the reality of there not being cops out there able to do the jobs as they want to do the jobs, because they're being handicapped.

I want to say this to the Liberals -- I said it to the Tories. They're not in government any more, so it's no longer of any use to blame them. But now I say

directly to you that you as a government are handcuffing our cops. You should be handcuffing or helping the cops handcuff the crooks; instead, you're handcuffing our cops. Then you have the lack of

grace to suggest that somehow you're burdened by a deficit -- and a deficit that you're calling upon the poorest people in our society to pay off, a deficit that once again you're going to the

middle class telling them to pay off, while your rich friends, your Mercedes Benz friends, your Jaguar friends, your Lincoln Town Car stretch friends, your Frank Stronach friends, your Mercury

Marquis Landau cabinet minister friends with the leather and plush upholstery and those dark tinted windows -- you wanted to tax the muffin instead of the Mercedes-Benz. Look what you guys tried to

pull off. You wanted to tax the crummy buck-and-a-half muffin at Tim Hortons instead of the rich guy in the S500 or the S600 with those tinted windows cruising his way down the passing lane on the

QEW, on the 400 highway, knowing he could do 140 klicks an hour because we don't have any cops on the 400-series highways.

Interjections.

Mr Kormos: We don't. You know full well there's a crisis of policing on our 400-series highways. Northern Ontario has suffered a drought of

police officers. Just as Paul Martin is responsible for the deaths of homeless people in Toronto, I say that this government now has to accept responsibility for deaths on highways when we have

inadequate policing on our 400-series highways.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: I've listened carefully, and it has been a few minutes since I've heard the words "private investigators" or "security

guards." I wish we could get back to the subject.

Mr Kormos: You bet your boots, Speaker. I'm talking about public policing versus private policing. I'm telling this government once again that

as long as they persist in underfunding public policing, there's going to continue to be a proliferation of private policing, and as long as there's a proliferation of private policing, we're going

to have to continue to address this issue and the problem is going to continually be one step ahead of any legislative efforts on the part of this assembly.

You can pass this bill, and I urge passing this bill, but the fact is, once you pass it, as pressures increase on communities to buy private policing -- and

again, what does private policing mean? It means only the people who can afford to pay for it get it. Poor folks don't get private cops; it's the rich people in their gated communities who have

private cops. They've got those canine patrol cars, you know the ones, K/9 that drive around, the guys in the SWAT team outfits. That's what we're talking about, of course, when we're talking about

regulating the uniforms, but they drive around in their cars with the German shepherd in the back. It's rich people who have those. Poor people don't get that. Middle-class folks don't get that.

Middle-class folks and poor folks have to depend on an increasingly depleted, understaffed and under-resourced public police system. The real issue here ought not to be a private security guard

who's trying to do his job with whatever modest level of training his employer permits him to have; the real issue is the adequacy of public policing, whether it's the Ontario Provincial Police or

municipal police forces, like the Niagara Regional Police down where I come from, or the Toronto police where so many of you are from.

You can pay lip service to the bill and pass it, but if you're going to be meaningful about ensuring the safety of communities, you're going to invest real

money back into police forces across this province. You're not going to hide behind your passion to protect your rich friends from accepting responsibility to pay their fair share of taxes and to

accept responsibility for the benefits they've enjoyed as a result of Tory tax cuts and the resulting deficit this province finds itself burdened with.

Hon James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): I intend to support this legislation, as I support the legislation put forward by

Mario Sergio as a private member's bill before the House dealing with the licensing and training of private security guards -- that's Bill 66, as you would know. I supported in the years 2001, 2002

and 2003 the private member's bill by David Levac, the member for Brant.

I think the bill has many compelling elements to it. It is not a perfect bill. Seldom do we have legislation that comes forward in a private members' hour that

is totally perfect and acceptable to everyone. But I think it captures what David Levac and Mario Sergio have been trying to do for some period of time.

I think we recognize that a significant problem exists out there today with some security guards who are not adequately trained. On many occasions, people from

security guard companies endeavour to portray themselves as police officers, and we know that, first, they don't have the training and, second, they don't have the onus and responsibility that

members of the police services across this province have. So this bill is quite compelling.

I listened to my friend for Leeds-Grenville being critical of the fact that the government was not moving more quickly on this bill. I simply remind my good

friend Bob Runciman that in 2001 his government had a chance to approve the bill by Mr David Levac, the member for Brant, and chose not to do so. They had a chance to do it in 2002 and 2003, and to

support the bill by Mario Sergio. We're not going to occupy ourselves with partisan rants in this regard, but when I hear those criticisms, I simply think it's important that the people who are

watching in the gallery or at home know that the previous government had a chance to implement this legislation and did not do so.

That doesn't at all diminish the fact that legislation is needed. Indeed, there are areas of some communities in the province that have hired what they would

call private police forces or security forces, and the individuals there are not trained as police officers. They cannot deal with the public. It is a very onerous responsibility to be a police

officer in this province. There are a lot of obligations on police officers in Ontario and in other jurisdictions. That is why they go through such intensive training and retraining. That is why

they are held accountable and security guards in the private sector are not held accountable.

The member for Niagara Centre appropriately pointed out the privatization of police services in this province over the past eight and a half years as a result

of significant downloading and other factors. I think the bill commends itself for consideration by committee, and of course by the House today. I certainly intend to support it.

I did hear some words that perhaps diverted a bit from the tenor of this bill. I heard about members on the government side getting paid more money, and I just

wanted to remind people, now that the New Democrat Party has party status thanks to the new member of Hamilton East, that virtually all the people in the NDP, I think, will get more money, and I am

pleased for them. But I think that's not a known fact. I heard about limousines and something of that nature. I know that Mr Howard Hampton, the leader of the New Democrat Party, will really be

pleased to have that government car and driver take him around Ontario. I just wanted to mention that in case people weren't quite aware.

Mrs Liz Sandals (Guelph-Wellington): I'm pleased to rise this morning and speak in support of the private member's bill from Mr Dunlop. This

is an issue that has certainly increased in profile in the last few months. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of security guards in the province. There are now 29,000 licensed

private investigators and security guards but, interestingly, almost as many unlicensed security guards. In fact, 20,000 people are acting as security guards or private investigators without

licences, which in itself is a serious problem. Between 1991 and 2001, there was an increase of 73.6% in the number of people who were acting in this capacity.

Security guards and private investigators are regulated by the private investigators and security guards branch of the Ministry of Community Safety and

Correctional Services. The act that governs this has actually not been updated since it was originally introduced over 35 years ago. Clearly it's long overdue for an update.

Concerns have been raised around the lack of training requirements for private investigators and security guards, around problems with the whole licensing

process, and with public confusion when they see the uniform: Is this a security guard or a bona fide police officer? So there are a number of issues that I think we all agree we need to pay some

attention to.

The Shand inquiry has probably brought this whole issue to public attention. You may recall that Patrick Shand was killed by a security guard who was trying to

arrest him in a parking lot in Toronto. The coroner's jury, which recently sat and released its findings, made a number of recommendations. Those included that training programs should be required

and that those training programs should at least include the use of first aid, CPR and use-of-force training. We've also been told by the coroner's jury that we need to look at the licensing

process -- that there should be mandatory licensing of private guards -- and that generally we should have more training for people who may be in a position to stop someone to try to make an arrest

as part of their duties, even though they're not a police officer.

In terms of public perception, I think that many people think this has only come up as a result of the Shand inquiry. In fact, that's not true. To his credit,

the former Minister of Public Safety, Mr Runciman, did release a discussion paper in June 2003 to look at the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act. Our Minister of Community Safety and

Correctional Services, the Honourable Monte Kwinter, decided very early in our mandate to carry on with that work. Before the Shand inquiry actually had hearings, let alone released

recommendations, Minister Kwinter had directed that the consultation go forward and that we talk to the industry about how we need to amend the act, with a view to amending the act and bringing in

legislation as early as next fall.

The consultations that the ministry is currently undertaking are focusing on the need for mandatory and consistent basic training for all security personnel.

We would be looking not at just CPR and first aid but at a whole lot of training around the issues of the responsibilities of security guards versus the responsibility of police officers; what

security officers are and are not allowed to do; how, when they have to arrest somebody or use force, that should be done appropriately, as opposed, in the Shand case, to inappropriately.

We also want to make sure we have a mandatory licensing process in place and that we are ensuring that people who have a criminal record do not become security

guards, along with a host of other issues. I will be supporting this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Simcoe North has two minutes.

Mr Dunlop: I appreciate everyone who spoke this morning on the bill: the member from Brant; my colleague Bob Runciman from Leeds-Grenville;

the member from St Catharines, Minister Bradley; the member from Niagara Centre, Mr Kormos; and from Guelph-Wellington, the PA for community safety and corrections. I thank you for the kind words

this morning.

This is a piece of legislation, as we've said earlier, that hasn't been updated since 1966. I don't think there are too many pieces of legislation that affect

so many people and have not had the opportunity to have some kind of revision or updates or amendment over those years. I think we said earlier that eight separate Premiers had an opportunity to

deal with this, and it just hasn't happened. Now is the time.

Obviously the Shand inquiry has brought a lot of emphasis to this, but it's always been at the forefront of our law and order people: our police association,

the OPP, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police. They're the people who are responsible for law and order in our province. It's always a high priority on their agenda and at any of the

conferences they hold.

As critic for that position, I'm honoured to be able to present this piece of legislation this morning. I'm hoping that over the next short period of time we

can maybe get it to committee, maybe work with the government. I'm looking forward to doing what we can to make sure the recommendations of Shand and the recommendations that are part of Bill 88

are actually implemented and become law here in Ontario.

As the Shand inquiry mentioned in recommendation 2, it's very important that these recommendations are implemented in a very expedient manner. I'm hoping the

House will support that and actually see that it takes place.

ONTARIO WORKERS'

MEMORIAL ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LE MONUMENT COMMÉMORATIF

DES TRAVAILLEURS DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Ramal moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 79,

An Act to establish the Ontario Workers' Memorial / Projet de loi 79, Loi visant à ériger le monument commémoratif en hommage aux

travailleurs de l'Ontario.

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

Mr Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): I'm proud today to rise in this House to speak about my bill,

An Act to establish the Ontario Workers'

Memorial. This bill is not a new bill. It was first introduced as Bill 37, the Ontario Workers' Memorial Act, by Dominic Agostino on May 21, 2003. That bill didn't get past first reading in this

House, maybe because the timing wasn't enough to get the chance.

Today I have the honour and pleasure to introduce it on behalf of the late Dominic Agostino. I think it would be good to honour the member from Hamilton East

for his work and effort to protect, work and advocate on behalf of the workers of Hamilton East and all the workers across this province.

This bill would have the effect of erecting a memorial in or adjacent to the legislative precinct to honour the memory of those who lost their lives on the

job.

It's true that many Ontario communities have memorials to workers killed on the job. In fact, 49 towns, cities and villages have such monuments. In London, we

have a workers' memorial that is located outside the Tolpuddle Co-op Hall on Adelaide Street, but I bet that if you asked most people, they wouldn't have known about it. I didn't even know about it

until very recently. I bet in each of those 49 communities most people wouldn't know there was a memorial to workers who were injured or killed on the job.

Yet every year over 300,000 Ontarians are injured on the job through an accident or by contracting a disease. Every one of us remembers the disastrous disease

that hit Toronto last year, SARS, which killed many innocent people, especially front-line workers who gave their lives to protect the people of this province.

The WSIB reports that in 2003, 359,353 workers suffered injuries and occupational diseases, and 552 died. Those are the total claims made to the WSIB last

year. Many people, sometimes killed, were never reported to the WSIB.

That's why I'm very happy to see that our government is doing more to help ensure the safety of our workers. More inspectors, 25 of them, have been hired to

enforce the Employment Standards Act, and more, I am told, will be coming on-line down the road. It is that commitment to the Employment Standards Act that will go so far to help workers and

employers thrive in a safer workplace, because a fair workplace is a safer workplace. Cracking down on bad employers through education and training, through legislation, enforcement and prosecution

if it is necessary, are some very good ways in which we will travel down the road to safer workplaces.

For some, these measures are too late. They paid the ultimate price doing their jobs. I think it's right, and long past due, that we as a province together

have one place, one memorial, to those who died while working.

I have said many times in this House that the workers of Ontario are the lifeblood of this province. Their talent and skills have made Ontario what it is

today: the most important economy in Canada. I ask for the support of this House in passing this bill to honour the workers in this province.

I believe the workers in this province deserve all the respect -- especially those who have lost their lives -- in continuing to work across this province to

strengthen our economy and to continue giving life and effort to have a strong economy to support other programs in this province.

I come from London-Fanshawe. London-Fanshawe is rich with many factories. The structure of that riding is of hard-working people who wake up every morning and

go to work to contribute to this economy. This bill will give them some kind of incentive and some kind of honour, to honour the people who go to work on a daily basis. They will believe that

people in this province respect their effort and their work, especially if they are injured or die while doing their work.

Every year 300,000 workers are injured on the job. Almost 100,000 of them were injured severely enough that they had to take time off work. We have to remember

those workers, the people who build our vehicles, grow our food, build our homes and sell us goods and services every day. Without them, the economy would grind to a halt.

I believe this bill is a small token to honour those courageous people in many fields in this province, to tell them that we're thinking of them, that we

believe in their efforts, that we believe their work is going in the right place. It will encourage others to continue doing great work and a great job.

I believe our government, the Dalton McGuinty government, is doing a lot through all the ministries to make sure there is safety in place. I was listening to

the Minister of Labour a while ago. He was talking about safety in the workplace. All of his ministry is put to work to make sure that all the workplaces in this province, whether a construction

site or factory or hospital or anywhere, are safe, to make sure that all workers come to a safe place and that all jobs are being introduced in a professional and safe way. This is the only way we

can protect our workers in this province.

I heard my colleague a few minutes ago speaking about the negligence of our government toward workers. I believe for the first time ever in this province, or

for the last nine years at least, we increased the minimum wage. We introduced time off work if you have somebody in your household who's sick. All of us, every one of you listened many times to

debates and many speakers talking about supporting the bill, to make sure that all people who have someone who's sick can take some time off -- all this in an effort to strengthen the workplace, to

respect and honour all workers across this province.

I believe that by passing this bill, we can send a great message to the workers in this province that, as members of this assembly, we care about then. We'll

try to work and do our best to make sure, through our ministers, through our government, that all the workplaces they go to are safe and protected, and we'll make sure they're honoured if something

happens to them.

For that reason, I would like to ask all members from both sides of the House, from the three parties, to support that bill, because I think it shows great

respect for the people who built and continue to build our economy and this province.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It is indeed my pleasure to rise and respond to Bill 79 from the member for London-Fanshawe.

I would like to start by saying it's extremely important to leave the message that, in my view, we will be supporting this important statement about worker

safety.

Again, the bill is not original. It's been around the House for some years, but it is also a testament to former member Dominic Agostino from Hamilton East,

who introduced the bill on May 21, 2003. Fittingly, Mr Ramal brought this forward on May 10, 2004.

It is an issue that has been around, really, if you look back to the Workers' Memorial Day, which was enshrined in 1984 as a day of mourning and now is

respected in over 80 countries throughout the world. April 28 is the day that we honour the memory and the families of injured workers in many and varied workplaces in Ontario, in Canada and

throughout the world.

We are fortunate to have a strong and vibrant economy and an opportunity for young people and people of all skills to work. That's the most important thing:

the opportunity to display and demonstrate their skills, earn a living income and to feel the respect of that earned income. But the other side of the equation is to eliminate and eradicate, if

possible, all the potential risks and hazards that befall us in the workplace.

Last year, I recall in the SARS epidemic, the SARS health outbreak in Ontario, those persons who are often overlooked in the workplace -- that is, the nurses,

doctors and other health care providers -- were at severe risk. I would like to be on the record as stating the great respect and appreciation and indeed admiration that I have for those

professionals and those people in their workplace who put themselves at risk.

But you should know that nurses are in one of the most hazardous professions in Ontario, and that needs to be reinforced. Just recently at the hospital in my

riding of Durham, Lakeridge in Oshawa, I was invited to attend the commissioning of these automatic lifts that prevent workplace injuries in hospitals. So hospitals are areas and workplaces that we

often assume but don't relate -- we often think of workplace injuries being tied more to construction sites or heavy industry,

whereas people of every age and every skill can be put at risk. So I

put on the record that the workers who worked through the incidents of SARS and in ongoing cases, often in highly infectious workplaces, need to be respected. Every possible action should be taken,

and it's incumbent on the government to put that in place.

It's also important for me and my riding. In my riding, the largest employer would be General Motors. General Motors has a very large facility: a truck plant,

two auto plants and other related assembly facilities, but also is in the process of a major expansion for much-needed growth in the auto sector, which is important for all of Ontario, really, as

the second-largest job creator and economic engine in the province.

I know, from my 30 years of working at General Motors -- and much of that time was spent in personnel and labour relations but latterly I was a shift

supervisor in the assembly environment -- the risk that workers are placed in, often unknowingly. Workplace safety is extremely important, and that's a two-way street. It's incumbent on the

employer, but it's also incumbent on the employee to participate by wearing the appropriate safety gear that has been mandated through the local contract language, but also to do whatever is

necessary to bring to the attention of those supervisors those things that constitute a hazard, whether it's a spill on the floor, a low-hanging device or possible interruptions in their workspace

that can present as a hazard.

I know, whenever incidents occur, how much anguish is forced on to the workplace and the workers, at whatever level or whatever function they're in. It's a

tragedy. An injury, whether it's someone losing a finger, falling into an open area or being struck by a lift truck or some other moving vehicle -- the whole workplace is in shock. If you want to

roll that out, I think of the families. If it's the principal income earner for the family, it is a real tragedy in the broadest sense in that limited community, but in their family and extended

family; in fact, in their community.

I think next of the Darlington nuclear plant, and of course safety is a top priority in those plants. There's possible exposure to all sorts of issues along

the nuclear field, but I know safety is a priority. They have a very proud record of zero lost-time accidents, and that's just part of what we're speaking about. But safety and the safety culture

in those workplaces is an ongoing discipline that's absolutely essential.

The unspoken tragedy of someone actually losing their life is the very worst example of what ultimately can happen. That really does bring itself home

throughout Ontario, if I have my numbers right. According to the Workplace Safety Insurance Board, which accumulates these statistics, in 2003, 552 workers were killed; in 2002, 596 died; in 2001,

453 lost their lives. It's tragic to think of those numbers. In fact, if you look at the Canadian numbers, 900 Canadians are killed each year as a result of injuries or illness and accidents

related to the workplace. So it is a real tragedy. How do you recognize or bring to focus the tragedy to the human condition?

Mr Ramal, I do respect the intention of your bill, with all regard. Again, looking at it in a legislative sense, I have reviewed the bill. It's not new, as I

said. I had the occasion, as I said, to work in industry. Also, when elected in 1995, when Elizabeth Witmer was the Minister of Labour, I was on her labour advisory committee, because my

undergraduate degree is a specialist in human resources, or labour economics actually. I was pleased to bring the 30 years' experience of working in industry to the table, and workplace safety was

part of that. So there has always been the initiative to strike some memorial, and that's the essence of the legislation, the commissioning of some memorial.

I think it's fitting to have a tribute. Certainly on April 28, I have the accounts here of the spoken word of the Minister of Labour and all of the critics on

each side of the House. There isn't a person here who would not find a way to pay fitting tribute to all workers and to realize there are risks.

I can recall when my oldest son graduated from the Royal Military College and he was commissioned as a flight officer on the Sea King helicopters. He actually

was involved in an incident. As I recall, they were doing one of the regular patrols on the Sea King helicopter, and of course he wasn't a fully trained pilot at that time. They developed a

hydraulic leak while at sea and they had no choice but to force-land the helicopter on, I believe it was, a golf course right off Cape Breton Island. But I think it drove home to me that all

experience has risk, all those work-type experiences, including being here in the Legislature. There are certain risks involved, I guess, in our roles.

Looking at the bill, it establishes -- I'll just read the contents here: "The purpose of the bill is to require that a memorial be established in or adjacent

to the legislative precinct of the Legislative Assembly to honour the memory of workers who have died on the job" -- very specific recommendations.

I reviewed it, and there are a couple of concerns that I just raise for members of the House to bring to the debate. One of the issues is, fundamentally, that

the bill as I interpret it is actually out of order. It's written in such a way that it isn't really out of order, but a private member cannot bring forward a bill that requires the government to

expend money. I think it's important, in commissioning any private member's bill, of which I have several, that it cannot require the government to spend money. This does refer, this issue here,

and I'll read it --

section 2: "The Board of Internal Economy of the Legislative Assembly shall take such actions as it considers appropriate to establish and provide for the maintenance of the

workers' memorial, including consulting with experts in the design of memorials." At the end here it says, "The report shall recommend a site for the memorial, make design recommendations and

contain an estimate of the costs, and may make such other reasonable recommendations" to the Board of Internal Economy. The costs -- and it's only a technical reference, but I'm saying to you that

with unanimous consent this will probably go to committee, to bring more discussion and appropriate comment. I think that's just one of the small concerns I have.

The other one is the whole minutiae of when you start to recognize the deaths. Who validates or legitimizes those incidents as work-related? That becomes a

whole quagmire of regulations of who, under what authority and under what mandate -- whether it's the WSIB, when did they start commissioning statistics etc. So there's some detail there.

Going forward, I think, would be that the people who disastrously met with tragedy in the workplace in 2003 would be left out. Those persons with SARS

implications: How do we trace back the implications that they may at some time in the future not be with us? And can we trace that workplace illness or infection or whatever back to the workplace?

That becomes a whole very fuzzy area of implementing the bill.

But again it's not the lack of desire. I think we need, and in the workplace specifically, the institution, whether it's General Motors, Ontario Hydro or any

of the varied workplaces in the province that would -- and I believe they do constitute and have a memorial or a reflection, and certainly there's great sadness that affects the workplace, and

indeed the community.

I want to bring to bear the respect that I do, in my role as the MPP for the riding of Durham, meet regularly and whenever asked, with all of the spokespersons

or stakeholders in the area of labour. I just want to put on the record some of those people:

John Gillett is the business manager for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 894. I've met with Terry Kelsey as well. Edwin Hull is the

president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. John Lewis is the president of the Durham Region Labour Council. A good friend of mine, Bill Harford, is past president and still

active in the labour council in Durham. Garth Cochrane is the business agent and Larry Cann is the business manager for UA Local 463 of the plumbers, steamfitters and welders, a very highly skilled

group that works in high-risk situations, primarily construction. Joel Nevell is the business representative for the carpenters union, Local 397. They're just a few of the people I had on record in

my constituency office whom I actually have spoken with or met with.

In my riding of Durham, as Mr Hoy would recognize, agriculture safety is something that's often overlooked. I want to bring respect to the Ontario Farm Safety

Association and the work they do to educate current and young workers in their work environments. I commend the work of Karen Yellowise, as well as Jacqueline Vaneyk, who is the actual president of

the Durham Region Federation of Agriculture. Agriculture and farm implements are a highly sophisticated business today -- the equipment they use and the environments they work in, often in close

space, heavy equipment and automation. You need to be on your toes. There are a lot of young people involved in that workplace as well.

That brings to mind one of the other things I want to mention. I had the privilege of meeting Paul Kells. Most of you would know his son, Sean, who I think was

19, a student who was killed in the workplace. To his credit, Paul Kells turned a sad circumstance into a positive outcome, I believe, for young workers. He established the Safe Communities

Foundation, and it's all part of educating young workers.

I think, if I were to bring conclusion to this in respect of what I've said, education plays an important role in workplace safety. There's no better place for

the program than in workplaces and in schools today, as young people enter their first job, to be aware of the hazards and their personal responsibilities and the degree of risk.

But everyone here, I believe, out of respect for the workers' memorial, is supportive. There are some questions that need to be asked. I would be supportive if

this private member's bill from Mr Ramal would go to committee. In the discussion we would bring respect to those, and indeed to all workers, who contribute to making our lives better through a

great economy in Ontario.

Ms Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): It's my pleasure to notify members of the assembly that the NDP will also be supporting this bill and

supporting its going to committee. I'm very pleased to be taking the opportunity to speak on it myself, as it did come forward originally from the former member for Hamilton East, Dominic Agostino.

It gives me great pleasure to be able to be here today to speak to the bill.

I can imagine the reason that it was brought forward by Dominic was because of his knowledge of the numbers of workers, particularly in Hamilton and Hamilton

East, who have been killed on the job. As members of this assembly will know, the types of industries that we have in Hamilton -- largely the steel industry is one where injuries occur on the job,

unfortunately very frequently, and deaths occur frequently as well. The city of Hamilton in fact already has a memorial on city hall grounds. It was erected several years ago. For 20 years we in

the city of Hamilton have been recognizing Injured Workers' Day on April 28 at that memorial. I think it will be an absolutely fabulous thing to have such a memorial here, where we can make similar

speeches and appropriate memorials to those workers who are injured on the job.

Members have mentioned the number of people who have been killed on the job in 2003: over 500. Last year, 327 Ontario workers were carried to their graves by

pallbearers, and I believe that one single person killed on the job is too many in this day and age in Ontario. My understanding is that there are hundreds of thousands of workers who are

submitting compensation claims to the WSIB on an annual basis in Ontario. That, again, is unacceptable. We have to find ways to ensure that workers, who go to work every morning, come home whole

with all their limbs and all of their health in place at the end of each working day so that their families can then re-welcome them into the household, knowing they've had a safe and productive

day at work.

So there are a number of things that we need to do in this province to address the ongoing lack of safety, lack of health and lack of regulation around the

various risks that workers take on the job. Those risks are not only the kinds of risks that are of accidental types of injuries occurring with heavy equipment or with other kinds of things, but

also the risks that occur when people are put in situations where substances or chemicals or other kinds of cancer-causing agents, for example, are found in the workplace.

If you look at the true toll of these kinds of things in the workplace, there are some estimates that indicate that occupational diseases are, in fact,

affecting up to 6,000 Ontario workers every year -- 6,000 Ontario workers every year who are becoming diseased because of exposure to various cancer-causing agents in the workplace. Occupational

cancer, in fact, makes up a significant portion of occupational disease.

From my understanding of the issue, there are consultants in the industries who argue that there is a significant risk factor in occupational cancer, that up

to 5% of all cancers are occupational cancers. However, those who are not as close to industry and who are taking a different perspective, more of an advocacy perspective or more of a perspective

where we're trying to broaden the types of exposures that are out there in terms of analysis, those other types of consultants will indicate that anywhere from 9% to 40% of all cancers are

occupationally caused in Ontario -- 40% of all cancers.

We know, just from the burden on our health care system, that cancer is a growing concern for our community. If this is the case, then we have to do a lot more

to regulate and figure out what it is that is causing so much cancer in Ontarians, and if that is the case, the occupations people are undertaking, that people are going to work and being exposed

to agents and substances that are causing cancer -- and if it were at the top end of that rate, if the 40% rate is, in fact, one that's feasible and one that can be proven to be the case, that

would mean between 2,200 and 9,800 workers, almost 10,000 workers are dying of cancer every year as a result of their exposures in the workplace, and that's simply unacceptable. In addition to the

human suffering, the health care costs of these cancers range anywhere from $130 million to $500 million in Ontario. Most of this money would be reimbursed to the Ontario health care system by the

WSIB, if these occupational cancers were recognized.

But very few workers actually make the connection between their ill health, their feeling of unwellness and exposures they have actually encountered in the

workplace. Just over 382 fatal occupational disease claims were made to the WSIB in 2003. What we're seeing, then, is that about 400 people have made claims around occupational fatalities that were

cancer-related, that were disease-related to the workplace, but in fact that could be as many as 10,000 if we had a handle on the substances people are exposed to in the workplace every single day.

Of course, those exposures day after day, week after week, month after month and year after year eventually cause cancer for workers in Ontario, and that's just not acceptable.

In the city of Hamilton, the memorial that was raised to injured workers was done as a result of a very strong labour movement in our city. The labour movement

is strong in our city largely because of issues like this, largely because of the problems and concerns and difficulties workers have on the job in maintaining their health and maintaining their

ability to have safe and full lives.

When we had the memorial erected at Hamilton's city hall, it really provided an opportunity for people from the labour movement, politicians, loved ones of

injured workers and people who had died on the job, activists, health care providers -- all of these people, on April 28, now have a place in Hamilton where we can go and where we can give adequate

and appropriate and necessary -- not only words of mourning but also words of anticipation for the justice that we can create in the future, for the work that we can do to prevent these diseases. I

believe the saying is, "Mourn for the dead, but fight for the living." That is our obligation in this House. It's to fight for the living. It's to fight to make sure that those cancer-causing

agents, those environments that people are put in to this very day -- there are, I'm sure, thousands of people right now in Ontario being exposed to something that can maybe in five years, maybe in

10 years, end up giving them cancer. These are the things that are incumbent upon us to do right now.

It is with great pleasure, again, that I bring these comments on the bill. I think we really do need to constantly remember, not just on April 28 but on every

single day of every year, and be cautious about the abuse of human lives that can occur in the workplace. It's a responsibility of employers. It's a responsibility of regulators like ourselves, and

we need to take that responsibility seriously. I hope that after the memorial is erected, there may come a day in Ontario where we can say, "This memorial was erected because there used to be

deaths of workers on the job, because we used to have a problem with exposure of workers to cancer-causing agents," where we can proudly say as Ontarians that we've taken care of that problem, that

we've done the things that need to be done to prevent injuries and fatalities on the job as well as disease-causing exposures.

We in the NDP and the labour movement have fought for the living, not just in the struggle for better prevention but also for better protection for those who

survive workplace accidents, and we look forward to continuing to do that.

Ms Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): I too am very pleased to speak in support of this bill. We have to point out that this is important to

all of us in this House on a personal level because of the man who spearheaded the bill. I want to thank the member for London-Fanshawe for following through on this bill.

It was just recently that I had the vice-president of the Hamilton and District Injured Workers Group in my office. He was telling me of the work he had been

doing with the former member for Hamilton East, Dominic Agostino, and, through him, with our government. We talked about Dominic's spirit and the legacy he has left.

I just want to take a moment while we're doing this to talk about the man who spearheaded this bill. I knew him first as a journalist and then, second, as a

colleague. He is known to all of us as a tireless and unapologetic fighter for his constituents and for the underdog. As a journalist, he was so tireless and actually so creative and ambitious

about getting his issues into the media and his constituents' concerns into the spotlight that we would actually try in the newsrooms of Hamilton to have "Dominic-free news days," as we called

them. I have to tell you, we didn't always succeed. That's how successful and how creative he was at getting his issues out there, championing causes.

When I came to this side of the microphone, I found a tremendous colleague, a loyal man, an incredibly brave man and a savvy politician. I have to tell you, I

felt I was able to call him, night or day, for advice, like his constituents would be able to call him night or day for help or advice, and they could count on getting it. I very much miss his

presence here, and I miss being able to give him that phone call. But I am very happy today to be standing here to support his bill that he spearheaded and also to be able to say that I will be

presenting petitions on behalf of the injured workers' group later this afternoon, and basically on behalf of Dominic. He would be presenting those petitions today if he were here. So I am pleased

to be doing that.

This bill reminds us all that it is our responsibility as human beings, as part of our society, to look out for each other, to watch each other's back, to care

for each other; and that's really the essence of this. A monument is a symbol, and it will remind us at all times that that is what we are to do, each and every one of us. Whether we're in

different parties, whether we're from different groups of any kind, it is that as individuals, it is our responsibility to look out for each other. So I happily speak in support of this bill, and

once again thank the member of London-Fanshawe for bringing this forth and following through on the work of Dominic Agostino.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I'm pleased to speak to the bill which, as has been indicated by my capable colleague Ms Horwath from

Hamilton East -- I just want to say to the folks of Hamilton East: God bless you and thank you very much for your enthusiasm about the NDP here at Queen's Park. I was down there in Hamilton East,

and I was telling folks on the doorsteps -- I'd be with Andrea, we'd knock on a door and they'd say, "Andrea." They'd be saying, "Oh, that's right, you're Kormos." But they'd be telling me,

"Andrea's wonderful. She's great." I'm saying, "Listen, I know. If you've got any more folks like this in Hamilton, please let us know, or quite frankly, if you've got people like that anywhere

else in the province, we'd be more than pleased to have you in the chamber."

Ms Horwath has already laid out very clearly New Democrat support for this bill. I am incredibly hard pressed to refer to the incredible slaughter, poisoning

and assault of our sisters and brothers in our workplaces as accidents. Like more than a few others in this chamber, I've had an opportunity to review and examine workers' comp WSIB files. I've had

an opportunity to sit down with workers who have been assaulted and maimed in our workplaces.

You see, an accident is exactly that: It's an accident. It's something for which the causation is outside of our control. An accident is, oh, I suppose,

referred to by many as "an act of God." But I'm not aware of a single workplace maiming, poisoning, slaughter or murder that can be attributed to a mere act of God -- not one -- that one could not

trace the causation to a phenomenon that could have been controlled.

It is shameful that we continue to slaughter our sisters and brothers in our workplaces in this province in the year 2004. It is shameful that we continue to

cripple our sisters and brothers, who do nothing more than try to work to put food on their table, to pay their mortgages, to feed their kids, to send their kids to college and university. Every

worker in this province, every worker anywhere, has a right to leave that workplace, perhaps tired, but as physically and emotionally healthy as they were when they came to work that morning.

Here we are in this Legislature -- and again, there are many people with many diverse backgrounds. But here we are, the suited class, if you will. While there

may be many of us who worked in industrial work sites at earlier stages in our lives, there's none of us who have to get up at 5 every morning to be at the workplace by 6 every morning, regardless

of the weather, regardless of how well you feel, regardless of how tired you are from having worked the day before and then perhaps having worked all night or cared for a sick kid or any other

number of circumstances.

I certainly hope all of us attend the day of mourning for slaughtered and maimed workers. As Andrea Horwath says, as workers in this province say, as trade

unionists in this province say: "It's our job to mourn for the dead, but, by God, to fight for the living." Monuments aren't enough. Platitudes are not enough. Wringing our hands and expressing

concern about our slaughtered sisters and brothers isn't enough.

There are things we can really do. There are things this government can do, like permit agricultural workers to form trade unions and to collectively bargain

so they can fight for safer workplaces. There are things this government can do, like enact anti-scab legislation so that workers aren't maimed and slaughtered on their picket lines as scab buses

tear through those lawful picket lines. There are things this government can do, like enhance and reinforce the right to refuse unsafe work and ensure that every worker in this province, young and

old, anglophone and non-anglophone, is aware of those rights, is aware of what constitutes unsafe work in a toxic workplace and is confident that they can exercise that right without fear of

retribution.

Build a monument if you want, but we'd far more meaningfully spend our time building an Ontario Labour Relations Act, building a workplace health and safety

act that truly created safer workplaces and gave workers more control over those workplaces so that they could exercise their right to return home as fit as they were when they went to work that

morning.

We can build a society where human good prevails over the reckless pursuit of profits. Let this be a monument to that.

Mrs Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): I wish to speak on the importance of Bill 79,

An Act to establish the Ontario Workers' Memorial. I just want

to say that I will be supporting this bill, and I want to add my congratulations to the member from London-Fanshawe.

As you know, Huron-Bruce is a rural riding, and agriculture is the driving economic force. On-farm safety is a very important issue in my riding. As many of

you know, farming, by nature, can be very hazardous. In the past, many people have lost their lives in the workforce, including the agricultural sector. In 2002, 1,597 people were injured or

suffered illness. In this industry, there were 424 injured using agricultural machinery. These numbers only represent the allowed claims to WSIB. The number of filed claims is much higher, and many

people never approach the WSIB. So those numbers do not reflect, in total, how many people were injured within the farming industry.

But I'm very pleased that this government has brought forward a solid commitment to improve on-farm safety by providing health and safety standards for farmers

and farm workers. However, for some, prevention comes too late, and I feel it is extremely important to remember those members who have lost their lives through industry. I believe that it is a

very fitting tribute to place a memorial.

I also want to bring forward that the location of the memorial, I believe, is also of importance. For the number of people who come to visit Queen's Park each

day, it will be part of some of the scenery that they come to see. For the numbers of people that we have through the doors every day, it acts as a foundation for education. As we all know, real

change comes about through education, so that their workplace becomes a safe place within their environment. So I bring this forward today to add my support, as well.

Just as a reminder to everyone, within my riding of Huron-Bruce we have two sites: one in Goderich and one in Port Elgin. Over the years, those memorial sites

have acted as reminders to the people within my riding. As they say, if you can't remember your history, then you're bound to repeat yourself.

But it's up to us, the people who represent our constituents. We must ensure that the voices of people in the workplace, health and safety activists, surviving

family members and concerned citizens are heard.

I know that in the past, a version of this bill was brought forward before the Legislature by the late Dominic Agostino, the past member for Hamilton East. If

this bill is passed, it not only will signify the importance of remembering those who have lost their lives in the workforce, but it will be a wonderful tribute to our late friend and

colleague.

Mr Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): I'll be sharing my time with the member from Mississauga East.

I'm pleased to rise today to support my colleague from London-Fanshawe in his efforts to establish a memorial commemorating those who have lost their lives in

the workplace.

I remember, as a young engineer in the mid-1960s in the city of Ottawa, that we had two tragic collapses: one a building and one a bridge. I still recall the

solicitor for the coroner, a brother of a former Attorney General of this province. Everything that was so important about these deaths came out during that coroner's inquest. It was so tragic, and

I can recall very well today the hours that I sat during that inquest.

I support as well the bill's provision, as mentioned by the member for Huron-Bruce, that the memorial be located at or near Queen's Park, which sees thousands

of visitors annually. In fact, the memorial would be a fitting site for the day of mourning that has been taking place every year to honour those who have lost their lives on the job.

When I was on council in the city of Ottawa, I believe that two years ago we had the labour unions from the city of Ottawa request the city's permission to

place a monument to those workers who died building the Rideau Canal -- the Irish workers, back in the 1812 war with the Americans.

This is a tribute that we must go forward with and one that is meaningful. This special day was an initiative of the Canadian Labour Congress, which chose the

date to commemorate workers in Canada, and passed third reading in 1914. It is a sign of the importance of this gesture that recognition ceremonies marking that day as a day of remembrance are now

held around the world, after Canada's example. We now have the opportunity to make an important next step with this monument.

Families that have lost their loved ones in this tragic way need to know that their loss is not forgotten and that their loss is shared by all of us. They need

to know that we are doing our utmost to ensure that similar tragedies will be averted through our common efforts, through prevention, through education and through legislation.

Compared to some jurisdictions, Canada does not have a sterling reputation for health and safety in the workplace. For example, we lose six times the number of

workers they do through workplace accidents. Clearly we have much to do in this regard.

I am encouraged that our Minister of Labour is committed to addressing workplace safety and has made this issue a number one priority. He is personally

chairing the minister's action group on health and safety, an advisory body that brings together in partnership a range of experts from both business and labour to share ideas on how to reduce and

eliminate workplace deaths.

On work sites, the ministry is increasing enforcement with the hiring of 25 new site inspectors, with more to come. The ministry is also committed to enforcing

the Employment Standards Act, supported by measures including education, training, legislation, enforcement, and prosecutions when deemed necessary. The ministry is also looking at the extension of

health and safety protection into new areas.

All these efforts are important as we work hard to reduce the rate of workplace injury and deaths in this province. I believe it is important that we recognize

the lives that have been lost, as a sober reminder of the price they have paid and as a fitting memorial to their memory.

Mr Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East): I'd like to thank the member for Ottawa-Orléans for sharing his time to speak on such an important

bill. I'm very proud to speak on and support Bill 79,

An Act to establish the Ontario Workers' Memorial. It is great that my friend from London-Fanshawe has brought forward this bill, which has a

strong foundation from a previous bill that the late honourable member Dominic Agostino from Hamilton East brought forward. It was great to hear members from all three parties speak so eloquently

and heartfelt about this bill.

I come from a family of labourers -- construction workers, assembly line workers and heavy machinery operators -- and I have been close to tragedy. Many family

members and friends of the family have lost limbs or been seriously injured on the work site. I'm very proud of our government, in terms of the measures we are moving forward on in making the

workplace a safer place.

Yesterday, I was with the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care at the Irish Embassy pub at Yonge and Wellington, enjoying a cool beer on a beautiful day in a

smoke-free environment. As you know, the municipality of Toronto has gone smoke-free. If we think back and remember, you've seen the stop-smoking commercials where we had Helen, a worker in the

hospitality industry, who, through no fault of her own, having worked in a smoke-filled environment year after year, contracted cancer. We have to stop those Helen stories from happening.

I can say proudly that our government will take the onus off municipalities in terms of making them smoke-free and have a smoke-free Ontario by 2007. That is

something we can all be proud of and of the many lives we will save. As we know, 16,000 Ontarians die due to tobacco every year.

What was brought up by the member from Niagara Centre around accidents in the workplace is so true: Accidents don't just happen. Imagine this about accidents:

If we were to accept a rate of 99.9% where you don't have an accident and take that to the airline industry, then 99.9% of the time we wouldn't have accidents and every thousandth flight there

would be an accident and a tragedy for hundreds of people.

There is so much more work to do in terms of addressing accidents -- because accidents don't just happen -- and it's not around common sense. Everybody thinks

they've got common sense. The person driving down the highway at 160 kilometres per hour thinks they've got common sense. Common sense is not something we can live by. We have to build powers into

legislation and address situations, whether they come around lighting, ventilation, whatever it may be in the workplace, so these accidents stop happening.

I'm very proud that the member for London-Fanshawe has brought forward this bill. It will be a beacon for all those who have been caused tragedy in the

workplace.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Ramal, the member for London-Fanshawe, has two minutes.

Mr Ramal: I'd like to thank the members from Durham, Hamilton East, Stoney Creek, Niagara Centre, Huron-Bruce, Ottawa-Orléans and

Mississauga East for speaking in support of the bill.

I'd like to make some comment to the member from Durham, who was talking about the expense to establish the memorial. I believe it's very important to honour

people who give their lives, and who give their time and effort and are injured on the work site, to have something for them around this building, around this assembly.

As my colleagues from Huron-Bruce and Ottawa-Orléans mentioned, many visitors come to this place on a daily basis. I think it would be a very important

place to remind people about the people who gave their lives to support our economy and about people who continue working in factories, nursing homes and hospitals, construction sites, wherever

they work. I think it's very important to honour those people who gave their lives to support us and those who continue to support our economy.

I also want to speak to the member from Niagara Centre, who talked about bad employers. I think our government is doing its best to crack down on bad employers

through education, training and sometimes prosecution, if necessary, to make sure all workplaces in this province are safe and secure. It's important to us and to our government to make sure all

people who go to work on a daily basis -- as he mentioned, who wake up at 5 o'clock in the morning and have to be at work by 6 and sometimes work 12 hours on a daily basis. Those people need and

deserve respect.

Therefore, after listening to all speakers, I hope I get the support of this House to establish a memorial in honour of people who were killed and injured on

the work site.

The Deputy Speaker: The time allowed for private members' public business has now expired.

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

AND SECURITY GUARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES ENQUÊTEURS PRIVÉS

ET LES GARDIENS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): We shall deal first with ballot item number 23, standing in the name of Mr Dunlop.

Mr Dunlop has moved second reading of Bill 88,

An Act to amend the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will call in the members and deal with this after the next ballot item.

ONTARIO WORKERS'

MEMORIAL ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LE MONUMENT COMMÉMORATIF

DES TRAVAILLEURS DE L'ONTARIO

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): We will now deal with ballot item 24, standing in the name of Mr Ramal.

Mr Ramal has moved second reading of Bill 79,

An Act to establish the Ontario Workers' Memorial.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): I'm asking if we can move the bill to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, if that's

possible.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

AND SECURITY GUARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES ENQUÊTEURS PRIVÉS

ET LES GARDIENS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): We will now deal with ballot item 23. Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please stand.

Ayes

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brownell, Jim

Caplan, David

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Dunlop, Garfield

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Qaadri, Shafiq

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Scott, Laurie

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sterling, Norman W.

Van Bommel, Maria

Yakabuski, John

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please stand.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 48; the nays are 0.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96, this bill will be referred to --

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Can the bill be sent to justice and social policy, please?

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Dunlop has asked that the bill be referred to the standing committee on justice and social policy. Agreed? Agreed.

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

The House recessed from 1209 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SUNSET HEIGHTS PUBLIC SCHOOL

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): It is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize and congratulate Oshawa's Sunset Heights Public

School on 50 years of education and service to our community.

When Sunset Heights was built in 1954, it housed 150 students, with Mr Sutton as principal. The north wing was added in 1958, and the library, gym and

intermediate wing, along with the music room, were added in 1972. Currently, Sunset Heights has over 480 students, under the guidance of Principal Sutherland.

The school has always accommodated local community groups such as Beavers, Cubs, Scouts, park league soccer and baseball, along with adult volleyball, in the

facilities. Over the past years, staff continue to focus on key aspects of technology, mathematics and literacy, along with teaching a full ministry and board curriculum.

A strong emphasis of community safety and security at the school is supported and maintained by the school's active SCC, led by Chris Dart.

The staff and local communities support a variety of co-curricular activities including intramural and house leagues, band, choir, art and drama, chess and

running clubs, along with outdoor nature activities such as tree planting and a trout classroom hatchery. There is also an annual teacher-student hockey game, which I've had the opportunity to sub

into in the past couple of years.

I would like to ask all members to join me in congratulating the students, staff and community of Sunset Heights Public School on 50 years of giving.

STRATFORD FESTIVAL

Mr John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): Tuesday night was truly a midsummer night's dream in my hometown as the Stratford Festival marked the

opening of their 52nd season with Shakespeare's most beloved comedy. It was an exciting production that I describe as the Bard meets Cirque du Soleil.

Drawing audiences of more than 600,000 patrons each year, the festival season now runs from April to November, and includes a wonderful array of 14

productions, including six from the Bard himself, offered at our four theatres. If that were not enough, the season also includes a full program of fringe activities, including concert recitals,

discussion sessions and readings by celebrated authors.

I was very proud to attend the traditional opening-night gala dinner and watch as my colleagues the Minister of Culture and the Minister of Tourism and

Recreation announced $200,000 from each of their respective ministries to assist the festival in target marketing to both families with children and patrons from Michigan. Joined by the Minister of

Finance, the evening was a resounding success. Of note, all three already have plans to return to Stratford this season.

Our government, despite fiscal challenges, is committed to the arts for all the right reasons. Our culture helps bind us together as a community, as well as

providing the basis of vibrant economic growth.

I entreat all members to visit the Stratford Festival this season, and I stand ready to assist them.

Finally, I want to commend artistic director Richard Monette, and executive director Antoni Cimolino, for the creation of yet another wonderful season, for

truly it is "such stuff as dreams are made of."

AGRICULTURE PROGRAMS

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): On May 18, I -- and I'm sure all Ontario's farmers -- was stunned to see the Ministry of Agriculture and Food's

budget cut by $128 million.

Since then, the minister and his staff have explained this -- the largest cut of any ministry and the largest agriculture cut in history, I believe -- as

simply the end of one-time special funded programs. Minister Peters is on record as saying programs like Healthy Futures and BSE relief are included in this group.

The last time I checked, the borders were still closed to live cattle, and the beef and dairy farmers were still suffering extreme financial hardship. Was

one-time special funding sufficient? I don't think so.

By publicly acknowledging that the Healthy Futures program will not be funded, the minister has turned his back on research and development initiatives in

agriculture. In my time as Minister of Agriculture, Healthy Futures funded research on products made from tobacco that actually added to public safety through its ability to detect E coli bacteria

in meat.

This minister couldn't convince his urban colleagues that the tobacco industry deserved consistent funding. Now it's obvious he can't convince them that these

farmers deserve R&D money either. Both of these programs need to be funded or replaced. They are too important to the future of agriculture.

Through acceptance of this budget cut, Minister Peters has turned his back on agriculture and shown he is incapable of representing its importance at the

cabinet table. I urge him to speak up immediately so that these programs get the money they deserve, and to be a stronger voice for farm families in this province.

BRAIN INJURY AWARENESS MONTH

Mr Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): I'm pleased and proud to rise in the House today to highlight the month of June as Brain Injury Awareness

Month.

A personal friend of mine and a constituent from Niagara Falls, Jacqui Graham, suffers from brain injury due to a serious car accident that occurred 19 years

ago. Jackie has had to totally readjust her life to live with the permanent scars of a brain injury and has become a spokesperson for the brain injury association.

"Brain injury can hurt forever" is a phrase that is becoming synonymous with the month of June as it becomes Brain Injury Awareness Month. Brain injuries kill

11,000 Canadians each year and permanently disable many more. It is the leading cause of death and disability for Canadians under the age of 45.

Precautions, such as the proper use of seat belts, child care seats, correctly fitting bicycle helmets and the avoidance of alcohol use while operating motor

vehicles, can go a long way toward the prevention of brain injury.

I urge all the members of the House to reach out to the brain injury awareness and support groups in their communities in June as we all support Brain Injury

Awareness Month.

ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's my pleasure to rise in the House to recognize Sunday, June 6, as D-Day, as we all know it, and to extend

congratulations to teachers David Robinson and Nancy Hamer Strahl of Port Perry High School, along with Michael Strahl of Courtice Secondary School and Brent Birchard of Anderson Collegiate.

With the help of the entire community and dedicated volunteers such as author and councillor Lynn Phillip Hodgson, they organized a trip for D-Day ceremonies

in France on Sunday, June 6. Approximately 150 students will be attending. Geoff Taylor of the Royal Canadian Legion in Port Perry was also among the strong supporters of the project. There was

extensive media coverage of the trip, which was a credit to the teachers, students and community working together.

One of the highlights will occur when the students place a "we remember" time capsule at the Juno Beach Centre. I might add that this memorial was supported by

a $1-million contribution from the Ernie Eves government and the people of Ontario. I would like to congratulate the legion in Port Perry and its president Rory Thompson, as well as the Royal

Canadian Legion in Bowmanville and its president, Peter Puleston, on the legion's support for this trip for D-Day.

At this time I cannot help but remember the veterans in my riding, such as the late Norm Baker and the late Fred West. They were living examples of the

dedication and contribution these veterans have made. On the 60th anniversary, D-Day is a time to pay tribute to those who served, especially those who paid the supreme sacrifice. We will remember

them.

VISUDYNE TREATMENT

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Let me tell you about Margaret Boychuk. She's 83 years old. She lives down on the Kingsway in Dain City,

south Welland. She's lived there for 53 years now, raised her family there and in her senior years as a widow she enjoyed working in her garden, rototilling the ground.

The problem is, she is going blind. She has wet macular degeneration. She can be treated. She went to one of Niagara's leading ophthalmologists, Mario

Ventresca, and he indicated that she indeed can save her sight if he utilizes the Visudyne treatment for macular degeneration at the cost of $2,750 per treatment. She received her first treatment

in the latter part of April of this year. She may need as many as five more.

The problem is that Dalton McGuinty's Liberal government cares not about Mrs Boychuk's eyesight, nor about other seniors who suffer from wet macular

degeneration, because this Liberal government has told Mrs Boychuk that she is on her own, that the Liberal privatization of health care has left her without any access to OHIP recovery for the

cost of saving her sight.

Don't tell this woman that she has to resolve your deficit, Mr McGuinty. She has paid taxes all her life. She has paid lots of taxes. By God, Mrs Boychuk has

worked hard all her life. All she expects is to see the medicare, the public health care she helped build sustained for her. This government has a lot to account for.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): Since being elected in October, I've had the opportunity to meet with school principals,

teachers and students in various schools in my riding of Scarborough Southwest. With the budget announcement and a number of announcements made last week by the Minister of Education, I can now say

to these individuals that the war against public education is over.

Funding for public education is being dramatically increased in our four-year plan for change. In my riding of Scarborough Southwest and all across the

province, there is an overwhelming feeling of co-operation as our government prepares to reverse the Tory trend of low student achievement, crumbling schools and high dropout rates.

I have come to know school principals, such as Kevin Malcolm at St Theresa Shrine elementary school and Don Snow of Mason Road Junior Public School, and many

other educators, as well as their students. I'm certain that they are happy with the investments being made in our community: an $854-million increase in public education funding for 2004-05; more

teachers; additional help for students in need, especially those in ESL.

Educators are telling me that they are now happy to put the past behind them and are looking forward to a positive future of enhanced student achievement in

public schools.

Finally, I want to end with a small quote from Benjamin Disraeli, who once said, "Individuals may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can

create a nation." Public education is one of those treasured institutions in this province that gives us the best students, the best citizens and the best workers.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East): I'd like to take this opportunity to pledge my support of Minister Sorbara's decision to allocate $106

million to social assistance recipients in the budget he delivered on May 18.

The need for this increase in social funding is reflected in my riding of Mississauga East, where a high percentage of our case work is related to the Ontario

disability support program and Ontario Works. The calculated figure of a 3% increase to the basic allowance and shelter allowance will ultimately help those most in need. Our continued commitment

to those who are most vulnerable is an expression of our commitment to social services.

Fellow members, let us recall that the previous government did not deem it necessary to increase the level of funding to those most in need. This increase to

ODSP and Ontario Works is the first in 11 years. If we consider this from an economic standpoint, as inflation and the cost of living increased throughout the 1990s, Ontario's most vulnerable

citizens were left with an even greater hole to dig themselves out of. This was -- and I stress "was" -- a crying shame.

Thanks to my fellow members, Minister Sorbara and Minister Pupatello, our government is now working hard to change this social disparity. On behalf of my

constituents who are most in need of our help, I thank our government for its commitment to increasing funding for social supports.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I rise today to tell you how proud I am of being a member of the Liberal Party and, in particular, this government.

Today I started off my day by reading an

article on the results of a Sun Media-Léger Marketing poll. What did it say? It verified what we've been saying since the election and why Ontarians

chose change in October. The Sun Media poll said Canadians say health care is the number one issue.

That's why we're investing in health care. That's why we're hiring 8,000 more new nurses, full-time employment. That is why we're going to provide nine new

MRIs and CT scanners. I'm going to suggest to you that a good place to locate one would be in the riding of Brant. We'll invest in our community health centres, 150 new ones, primary care, mental

health services, long-term care and home care.

Senior citizens are going to be benefiting in health care from the budget we're putting forward. I want to thank the Minister of Health for his commitment to

making sure that our senior citizens are definitely taken care of, contrary to what other people are trying to spin around here.

We're going to make these investments. Why? Because people want them, and they're telling us not only in the federal election but in the provincial election

that health care is the number one priority. That's exactly what we're doing, and we're going to continue to do that.

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the report of the Integrity Commissioner

concerning the review of expense claims under the Cabinet Ministers' and Opposition Leaders' Expenses Review and Accountability Act, 2002, for the period of April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2004.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from

6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Thursday, June 3, 2004, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion, please say "aye."

Those against, say "nay."

I think the ayes have it.

Call in the members. There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1346 to 1351.

The Speaker: Mr Duncan has moved government notice of motion 110. All those in favour, please rise to be checked by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Broten, Laurel C.

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Orazietti, David

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Greg

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

The Speaker: All those against, please rise to be checked by the Clerk.

Nays

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Dunlop, Garfield

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Jackson, Cameron

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

O'Toole, John

Prue, Michael

Runciman, Robert W.

Scott, Laurie

Sterling, Norman W.

Wilson, Jim

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 50; the nays are 16.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

PROTECTION OF EASTERN WOLF

Hon David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources): It's my pleasure to rise in the House today to announce that this government is fulfilling

its commitment to increase protection for the eastern wolf in Algonquin Provincial Park. In meeting this commitment, we are contributing to the preservation of Ontario's rich biodiversity and a

healthy, natural environment.

I am pleased to announce that I have signed a regulation to create a closed, year-round season for the hunting, chasing and trapping of wolves and coyotes in

and around Algonquin Park, to take effect on July 1. The proposal for this ban received overwhelming public support when posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights registry last March. The practice

of chasing wolves or coyotes with dogs both in and around the park is also discontinued. We have extended the ban to include coyotes to further protect the eastern wolf, since it can be mistaken

for a coyote.

A closed season on hunting and trapping is just one aspect of protecting the eastern wolf, because Ontario's ecosystems are very complex. In managing wildlife,

we must consider a range of factors, including interactions among different and competing species and abundance and quality of habitat. For that reason, I am proposing that the eastern wolf be

assigned a provincial status of "special concern" on the new species at risk in Ontario list.

To put all this into context, it's important to note that the eastern wolf has lost 58% of its historical range in Canada and is now extinct in the Atlantic

provinces and the eastern United States. Algonquin Park is now the largest protected area for the eastern wolf in North America.

Wolves play an essential role in the Algonquin ecosystem. Wolves are also one of Algonquin's most enduring images and the focus of the park's popular

interpretive programs, including the renowned howl evenings. This action is the first step in ensuring that future generations of park visitors will be able to marvel at the sound of the wolf

howls, and I would encourage every member to experience that this summer if they can.

I have also directed my ministry to develop a province-wide wolf management program. Wolves remain one of the last unregulated species in Ontario, and I

believe the wolf deserves the same protection and management we provide for other species.

We are proud to make this significant contribution to protecting the wolves of Algonquin and, in doing so, further preserve the rich biodiversity and

magnificent natural heritage of our province.

NURSES

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I want to say right from the get-go that this speech should be checked against

delivery. It could vary very slightly from the distributed copy.

I'm proud to speak to the House today about a major initiative that will help us rebuild an