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

November 5, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Nov-05 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 5 November 2009 Jeudi 5 novembre 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TECHNICAL STANDARDS AND SAFETY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2009

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

VISIT OF PRINCE OF WALES AND DUCHESS OF CORNWALL

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC INQUIRY LEGISLATION

PUBLIC INQUIRY LEGISLATION

FLU IMMUNIZATION

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

FLU IMMUNIZATION

FLU IMMUNIZATION

FLU PANDEMIC PREPAREDNESS

PUBLIC INQUIRY LEGISLATION

TOXICS REDUCTION

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

RAIL LINE CONSTRUCTION

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

FOREST INDUSTRY

CRIME PREVENTION

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

VISITORS

MEMBER'S BIRTHDAY

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

YORK REGION

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY

WILLIAM DAVIS

ABILITIES CENTRE

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

EVENT IN OAK RIDGES–MARKHAM

FLU IMMUNIZATION

REMEMBRANCE DAY

FLU IMMUNIZATION

FLU IMMUNIZATION

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

ELMVALE DISTRICT HIGH SCHOOL

TAXATION

SOCIAL SERVICES FUNDING

TAXATION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

HOSPITAL FUNDING

PARENTING EDUCATION

TAXATION

CHILD CUSTODY

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

VISITOR

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

SENATORS' SELECTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE CHOIX

DES SÉNATEURS

MISSING PERSONS ALERT

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

SENATORS' SELECTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE CHOIX

DES SÉNATEURS

MISSING PERSONS ALERT

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

SENATORS' SELECTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE CHOIX

DES SÉNATEURS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION

FOR FOREIGN NATIONALS ACT

(LIVE-IN CAREGIVERS

AND OTHERS), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR

LA PROTECTION DES ÉTRANGERS

DANS LE CADRE DE L'EMPLOI

(AIDES FAMILIAUX ET AUTRES)

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TECHNICAL STANDARDS AND SAFETY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2009

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 21, 2009, on the motion for second read of Bill 187,

An Act to amend the Technical Standards and Safety Act, 2000 and the Safety and Consumer Statutes Administration Act, 1996 / Projet de loi 187, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2000 sur les normes techniques et la sécurité et la Loi de 1996 sur l'application de certaines lois traitant de sécurité et de services aux consommateurs.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, I'm a little bit surprised nobody else got up. Good morning, everyone. I hope you are all having a good morning.

I just want to put a couple things on the record in regard to the technical safety amendment act. I first of all would say that this whole concept of moving the responsibility for—oh, thank you. That's why I have friends in this Legislature. They make sure that I look good. They can dress me up, but they can't take me out; that's the problem.

Anyway, as I was saying, part of the problem in this province is that this whole issue of taking responsibility for the inspection of construction sites etc. used to be something that was conducted by the province. When it came to the people who went out to make sure that the people who service elevators were doing their job according to the rules, and the people who do the actual maintenance on boilers in everything from apartment buildings to industrial plants or mines or mills were doing what they should be doing, that used to be within the ministry itself.

One of the reasons the crown is normally the one to do that is that the crown answers to the public. If you are a civil servant and work as a Ministry of Labour inspector or an inspector within what used to be the old inspection branch of the ministry that took care of this, if there is some question of public safety, there's always somebody who is accountable, because in the end they work for the crown and ultimately there's a minister and a government that's responsible.

Some years ago, the Harris government decided they would privatize the delivery of those services in a sort of private setting. So what they did was shut down what used to be the inspections branch within the ministry that was responsible for these types of inspections and put it into a sort of private sector model by creating the TSSA. I've got to say that right from the beginning it was not one that I welcomed. I've had experiences of having to deal on issues that are under the authority of the TSSA, on behalf of constituents in my riding, and I've got to say that it is not exactly the most user-friendly agency to deal with.

For example—and I think a whole bunch of other people would have got the same thing—on the issue of electrical contractors, the TSSA decided that you had to have a master electrician's licence in order to be a contractor in the province of Ontario. I understand the logic of what they were trying to do: They wanted to eliminate from the marketplace those people who do what they call fly-by-night or moonlighting work out of their basement, the electrician like myself, who work at the mine and say, "I can make a few extra bucks by wiring a house."

I guess there's an argument for that, because the contractors are the ones who pay the taxes and have overhead, and you need to protect their area in some way. I understand the need to want to do that. But the problem was that once they started to set up the master electrician's licence, they didn't want to grandfather any of the people who were in the business before. So I had contractors—we in this Legislature all had contractors —who had been in the business for 20, 30 years, and they were made to challenge the test.

Now, they could challenge the test, and all the ones I know who wrote it and who were opposed to the test, passed it. But the point was that they were not given any credit for all the work they had done up to then.

Imagine you're an electrical contractor—you're Eric's Electric or any of those contractors who were involved in this particular process—and after 20 years of being in business, paying your taxes and building a reputation in the community as a legitimate contractor and somebody who does quality work, you're told all of a sudden by the TSSA, because they have authority under the crown, that you have to go out and get a master's licence and you have to challenge the exam.

Well, these guys were really upset. They were saying, "Listen, I've been in the business for 20, 30 years, I served an electrical apprenticeship, I worked in the following fields before I started up my own business, I've had my own business for 15, 20 years," whatever it might be, "and I'm having to do this thing over again." They asked, "Why is there not grandfathering of the contractors who have been out there for a certain period of time?" So there would be some sort of criteria established that you have to be a contractor in good standing for five years, having done it full-time, or whatever regulations you want to tie around it.

My point is this: It was virtually impossible to get the changes to apply grandfathering to these people as a result of the way the TSSA was set up. They were extremely frustrating to deal with, I must say. Yes, they always returned my phone calls—I'm not going to say for a second that they didn't—and the people I dealt with were certainly trying to be accommodating to me. But the end result was that they were not trying to accommodate in any way the request that the contractors made.

We ended up having meeting after meeting and conference calls. I remember that at least once or twice we had meetings of contractors who came to my office and people from the TSSA came down. The arguments were made, and it was a bit embarrassing because the case was made but at the end of the day they decided they were going to do what they were going to do. Therefore, the contractors in my community, like everywhere else, were forced to write the exam. Now, they all passed the exam, and we said that from the beginning. It's not a question of these people not being competent; they had been doing it for 20 years.

Of course they could pass the exam; they could pass it with their eyes closed. But it was a question of respect. Do you respect the work these people have been doing for 10, 15, 20 years, and if so, why not find some way to accommodate that?

We've recently had the same situation on the Mining Act with prospectors. Prospectors are expected to take a course in order to be knowledgeable about the rules and regulations under the Mining Act and what their responsibilities are vis-à-vis the act. Again, we did say, "Well, there have been people in the business for a lot of years, they understand this, they're professionals, that's what they do, so let's grandfather people over a certain amount of time." The government ended up saying no. I just say that it's been an extremely frustrating process to try to get amendments for these types of situations.

Now, as for the TSSA and what's in this bill, what really is a bit shocking is that the reason we have this bill—I would imagine—is because of the propane explosion that we had a year ago. That's why we're here. One of the things that is really sort of interesting, as you read through the bill, is that the bill makes sure that the crown isn't liable for any of the omissions made by lack of inspection or faulty inspections on the part of the TSSA.

I think that's rather regrettable, because what we're basically saying is that we want to make sure that the government, at the end of the day, and the crown generally—because the government could be any of the political parties eventually after the next election—the issue is that the TSSA will find itself in a position with this particular legislation that its officers, directors and employees are not agents of the crown, and the crown is not liable for any act or omission by persons who are not agents of the crown.

What we're going to be doing is lessening the liability of individuals acting on behalf of the TSSA and also lessening the liabilities that the crown has when it comes to lawsuits arising from situations such as we've seen with the gas explosion that we had here in Toronto last year.

There's another thing that's of concern, and originally, when I heard it the first time, I thought, "Well, it can't be. Why would the TSSA say that?" But if somebody calls, let's say, an employee, and says, "We think you need to come and take a look at this boiler"—or "this elevator," whatever it is—"because we think there's some shoddy maintenance going on," or whatever, one of the first things that the TSSA asks is, "Who's going to pay for the investigation?" Wow.

I can tell you that if I call the Ministry of Labour as a worker and say, "There's an occupational health and safety concern at the mine"—or the forestry plant or the car plant, or whatever it might be—I can guarantee you that the Ministry of Labour doesn't say, "Who's going to pay for the investigation?" They just go out and they do the investigation.

One of the concerns of the TSSA, because they are in a private sector model, is the cost of doing the inspections. So they're much more reluctant to do inspections, on the basis that it might cost them money. Something that they might think, "Well, you know, this is not too important, this is just some person grumbling about something, and they're mad about their employer, so let's not send out an inspector," puts the public at risk, because one of the things that I think we need to follow is the idea that if there is a complaint, it should be followed up on.

I'll give you a story. When I worked at McIntyre mine some years ago, there was a complaint made by a worker in regard to a particular problem having to do with air-lines underground. I think it was on the 3,700-foot level. Anyway, the long and the short of the story is that the Ministry of Labour sent an inspector in, and because at that time I was the health and safety committee person within the Steelworkers Local 4440 on the maintenance side, as an electrician, I was asked to accompany the inspector.

Well, the inspector came out and inspected the situation and looked at what needed to be done—and in fact, there was an infraction that needed to be fixed—but decided, as a result of something he heard two guys talking about—I believe it was the 3,700-foot level where the 12-shaft hoist was; yes, the deck was at 3,800, so the hoist was up on 3,700.

Anyway, as a result of that, the inspector decided to go and check both the deck and to take a look at the cage itself, because a couple of people had mentioned something about the pin that goes across the top of the cage that's tied to the cable, that's tied to the hoist—that the bushings that were holding this large pin that secures it so the cage stays tied to the steel wire cable were worn out.

To me, it sounded preposterous because I know that that thing was inspected every week and that the people who inspected it knew what they were doing. So the inspector decided to shut it down and take a look at it, and lo-and-behold, what did he find? He found out that there were no more bushings; in fact, the bushings had been worn out. What had happened is that over the years, because of the way this thing had been constructed, the maintenance people didn't actually have physical access to see that particular part of the bushing.

It looked normal when you looked at it, but there was a real potential that one day if the shaft conveyance was going down the shaft, down to 6,800 or back up again, what could have happened was that that whole bar, that pin that runs across the cage that the rope is tied to, could have shoved over to one side and just unhooked and let the cage fall down to the bottom.

What was worse was—on a cage you have something called "dogs." Dogs are simply a mechanism. You have shaft guides that come down, which are BC fir, and then you have a guide that comes on the cage, like an H-beam type of construction, that guides the cage down so that it follows these wooden shaft guides. And if the spring that holds the steel-wire rope to the cage loosens, it engages a spring that throws sort of like knives—these are called dogs—into the wood to stop the cage. Because of the way that these bushings had been worn out, that system didn't work at all.

So we were potentially in a situation of losing one or more people as a result of a shaft conveyance accident. This would have been back in the 1980s or late 1970s sometime.

My point is, the Ministry of Labour inspector followed up and was not concerned about who was going to pay, how long it was going to take or whether this was inconvenient to the employer or the employees. His sole concern was, "I'm inspecting something, and I want to find out if it's safe, yes or no." When he found out it was unsafe, that part of the mine was shut down for I think a period of three or four days, until they were able to reconstruct that whole assembly system to make it safe for workers.

I can tell you, that was a really serious accident waiting to happen. Thanks to the Ministry of Labour inspector who happened to be there—I think Mr. Connelly was the inspector at the time and prevented what could have been a tragedy at that mine.

My point is that for the TSSA to ask somebody, "Who's going to pay for the investigation?" and to sort of pick and choose what you're going to go out and investigate, eliminates the possibility of inspecting something that might be quite dangerous but that people haven't twigged to, for whatever reason.

I think it's like the police. If there's a crime being committed, you dispatch the police and the police go and check. If they get there and find out it's a minor thing, they just tell people to calm down and they leave. But they go there and they find out, because it might be a serious situation. It should be the same thing with the TSSA. I'm not saying they should be the police and come in and kick the door down, but to come and inspect the situation to find out if there is something that's dangerous that should be dealt with.

I would be much more comfortable having those services that are provided by the TSSA moved back to the crown, because at the end of the day, you know that if you have an inspector who works for the crown, they're not going to be concerned about, you know, "Should I or shouldn't I go and inspect this?" because it's a question of cost or whatever. They go out and make sure that people are safe. I think there is no cost, when it comes to safety, that is too high. If it's unsafe, it's unsafe. Don't use it. We're talking about people's lives.

I worked in an industry in which it was very normal for people to get killed at the mine where I worked. We were a group of five or six mines. It was very normal—when I first started working in the mining industry—to hear once, twice or three times a year of somebody dying in some tragic accident because of some unsafe condition, and sometimes it was because workers were cutting corners and the equipment was not set up properly, and other times, it was because they were instructed poorly on how to do their duties.

I always remember Mr. Hale, who was one of the most tragic ones. His son died. Mr. Hale was a mine captain. His son was working at the Pamour mine. He wasn't properly trained, and he stood on top of an ore bin in which, as we say, the muck was frozen. The rocks that come up from underground are called muck, and when the muck came into the bin on the surface, it sort of congealed and locked itself up by pressure. That's what we call "frozen." For whatever reason, poor young Mr.

Hale—and I have to believe it was because of improper instruction—tried to unjam it using a blowpipe—that's a great big steel pipe about 20 feet long—and blowing air into certain areas and cavities to get it to start flowing freely. Unfortunately, he was standing on top of the muck pile when it did unjam. It was a pretty tragic way to go. Poor Mr. Hale and Mrs. Hale lost their son, the brother of Kim and Paul. I have to say it was one of the most tragic things I've seen. We would see that on a regular basis.

But my point is this: You look at the mining industry today and you don't see the amount of tragedy as far as accidents that we used to see back in the 1970s and, I would argue, into the 1980s. Why? Because governments of the day passed the Occupational Health and Safety Act and said to workers, "You have the right to refuse unsafe work." They hired Ministry of Labour inspectors—not TSSA types but people who worked for the government—to go in to make sure that employers had health and safety training going on within their employ.

For example, if I wanted to go back and work underground now, after having worked for years underground, I couldn't work underground legally because I have to have common core. There's a whole bunch of training that I have to do before I can go underground and work as an electrician, including understanding what's going on in my environment around me as far as what happens with the drilling, the blasting, the mucking and all of the various stages of mining.

The result of all of that is that companies have become much more safety-conscious, because they understand this is just good business: If I don't have accidents, I don't have an increased workers' compensation assessment and I can make sure that those employees that I invest in and train are going to be with me for a longer period of time and they're going to be more productive.

That has been the example and the result of what happened when we decided to do occupational health and safety in a real way, not only in the mining sector but across the various sectors of our economy—for my particular case, the mining sector. It's not to say that we don't have tragedies in mining today.

But I can tell you, for the number of hours worked today, in 2009, there are far, far fewer accidents and far, far fewer tragedies as far as deaths in the mining industry than there were 25 or 30 years ago, and the reason for that is that we understood that the crown has a responsibility to make sure to inspect those things that are called in and are said to be unsafe, that workers are trained and employers are sensitized to the need to train workers and doing the things that make our workplaces safe.

One of the things that is sad about the TSSA is that they have the ability to do what are called variances to orders. They're able to take, for example, certain equipment that may not be safe on a particular worksite—like some piece of equipment that has been used for a long time, and if you use it properly it's safe, but it has some issues around the way it was constructed. They have the ability to say, "Okay, you can go ahead and use that equipment." Unfortunately, we've had a number of tragedies on construction sites as a result of the TSSA having the ability to issue those variances.

One of the ones I'm concerned about is what they're doing with boilers. You know, in mines and sawmills and paper plants, various types of industrial settings, you have to have steam. The steam is created by way of boilers. One of the things they've done under the TSSA is to give companies the ability to say, "Your boiler will be scaled down from being class"—I forget what the classes are; class A to class B, or B to A, whatever. The point is to lessen the standard by which you have to have qualified personnel to run it in regard to what goes on and in regard to the maintenance on it.

I think that's a bit of an accident waiting to happen, because I can tell you as an electrician who worked on boilers, they're a pretty dangerous thing if you don't know what you're doing. If you go into a boiler and start working on a control circuit and happen to not know what you're doing and do improper maintenance on it, or improper repairs, you could end up bypassing or shutting down some limit switch on the pressure or temperature or whatever it might be, and have a ticking time bomb sitting in the middle of the plant ready to blow because somebody didn't know what they were doing.

We've had a very good system of making sure those people who touch boilers are qualified. I wasn't allowed to touch a boiler until I became a journeyman electrician. It took five years before they allowed us to get near those things to really learn about them, because they're quite dangerous pieces of equipment if you don't know what you're doing. The TSSA is allowing employers to downgrade the classification of those boilers so that lesser-qualified people can run them, and I think that's an accident waiting to happen.

With that, those would be my comments on this particular bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Mr. Eric Hoskins: Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the debate today on Bill 187 and in particular to respond to some of the comments made by the member for Timmins—James Bay. I want to also appreciate the experience he brings to the issue of public safety that he has outlined this morning.

I believe it's important to recognize that Ontario's public safety system is among the best in the world. It works well to protect Ontarians every day, and there's nothing more important to this government than the safety of all Ontarians. It's also important to continue to find ways to improve the system. Bill 187 would improve accountability and it would improve transparency of the Technical Standards and Safety Authority. Overall, it would further strengthen Ontario's public safety system.

Someone said that the TSSA should be brought back into government. I disagree. Safety is the McGuinty government's first priority, and having industry and safety experts ensuring a strong public safety regime is in the public's best interest.

Bill 187 provides clear powers for the minister to guide the strategic focus and activities of the TSSA. This guidance comes through policy directives and an annual mandate letter to the board of the TSSA. This would increase the transparency and visibility of the minister's oversight role.

Importantly, Bill 187 also creates a chief safety and risk officer. This is an independent officer, a safety advocate who would report directly to the board. Some here have also made the claim that the chief risk and safety officer will not report publicly. That also is not true. The officer will provide systemic oversight, and his or her reports to the board will be made public.

Bill 187—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. Sorry, that was questions and comments.

Are there any further questions and comments?

Mr. Mike Colle: I think the member from Timmins—James Bay outlined the complexity that all these various trades and professional bodies deal with in terms of providing for our safety. It's something we don't see. We assume that someone is watching over all these boilers and propane operations, and I think it was a rude awakening that the system we had to sort of supervise the safety aspects had some big holes in it. Like the member from Timmins—James Bay, I had grave misgivings about this type of self-regulation; I totally agree with him about that.

In this bill, we're at least trying to tighten up some of the most gaping loopholes in that self-regulation and trying to make it more responsible.

I know that the bill before us was brought to us because of an incredible, tragic explosion that occurred. I live a couple of kilometres from where the explosion took place, and I can still remember all the windows in my own house rattling and shaking that morning. I thought it was a storm. I came downstairs, went outside, looked in the sky and said, "It must be a thunderstorm or something." I turned on the TV—nothing; I turned on the radio—nothing. I went back to bed—another rattling.

I remember that I got on the phone later that morning with Rick Bartolucci, the Minister of Community Safety, and said, "Listen, something horrendous has happened. You had better make sure your guys are there on the job."

I just want to mention that this bill is also a good memory of the district chief of emergency planning, Bob Leek, who went to the site on his day off and died—we can't forget that—and of Parminder Singh Saini, who was a student at Sheridan College studying manufacturing and management, who also died. Let's not forget those two great people.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I want to commend the member from Timmins—James Bay for his presentation on this bill. I appreciate his comments and his knowledge about apprenticeship and about the training that the people who are responsible for the operations of the TSSA have. But as I was looking at the bill and recognizing why this bill was introduced—it was the big disaster, the big event that took place in Toronto with the Sunrise Propane explosion. But when I look at the bill, it really doesn't do much to solve any of those problems.

I'd be the first to admit that in my experiences with the present act, there are a lot of things that need to be changed to make it work better, and yet none of that seems to be in here.

This just seems to be a bill that was brought forward because the minister said, "I'm going to do something," and then he spent his time on something else and didn't get back to it, and all of a sudden somebody said, "How come you haven't done anything?" And so he did; he wrote this bill.

It talks primarily about how he's going to structure the board differently and give the minister more powers to tell them what to do, but so far, he hasn't decided on anything or hasn't been able to figure out what he's going to tell them to do differently than they've done before.

I think it's rather a shame that we're spending so much time debating a bill that could have been so much better but does so little for us.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Dave Levac: The member from Timmins—James Bay offers us some sound advice and practical experience that he has had and that has been translated into some of the concerns. I noted very clearly that he was talking about the safety, and I respect that immensely. He knows that I have deep respect for his past life, shall we say, and experiences in his community.

What an interesting comment one of the opposition members made, to try to say this is fluff. Quite frankly, it's disappointing to hear that, and I'm rather interested to see how they plan to vote: whether or not they don't want improvements to be made to the bill. What's rather interesting is that it was their bill that created the TSSA in the first place. One of them trumpeted this fantastic thing when 50% of the people who were supposed to investigate amusement rides were not even qualified or certified to investigate the rides. In my riding, unfortunately, some tragic events took place.

So I really dismiss this attitude of always finding a reason to say no. In opposition, it's not always to oppose; it's to propose, and I haven't heard that from one of the members over there.

This member, on the other hand, has made some interesting challenges for us to consider, and I think that's the way in which debate brings out the best in a bill; instead of just sitting there saying, "Government bad, opposition good." So I want to thank the member for his sound arguments and his sound observations through his personal experience. The more we use this place to enhance the bills that we put forward, the better it is.

I still maintain that this is a fluid place, this is a place where we continually move in a positive direction that offers us opportunities to do things differently and to move us into the next century etc. So the days that the people hear nothing but negativism—they're done. We want to move forward, and I thank the member for his sound arguments and his proposals to this House.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The honourable member from Timmins—James Bay, you have two minutes for your response.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I thank Mr. Levac from Brant for his comments. I try, as much as possible, when getting into debate or getting into committee, to make some proposals. The real test is—I think all of us will agree, because we've all been in government and we understand, unfortunately, how government sometimes doesn't work. I think one of the real tragedies around this place is that the committee system has been really weakened over the years.

I take the comments that you made at face value, that debate is about positioning what the amendments should be when we get into committee, so that we're able to take a bill and improve it. Once you get into committee, you have an opportunity to have the public come and make comment, and members are able to further discuss it and hopefully come out of the committee process with a bill that achieves the objectives the government wants, but in a better way.

The unfortunate

part is—and I'm not going to put all the blame on this government, because it has been a problem for a while—that members are less and less able to do the work they are sent here to do when it comes to amending bills. Why? Because the cabinet, and specifically the Premier, decides that if we show any type of movement on a bill, it's somehow a question of weakness for the government. I say quite the opposite: The style of leadership that I like is somebody who says, "Oh, you've got a better idea? Let's move forward." I just hearken back to the Second World War and Operation Overlord with Dwight D. Eisenhower.

If people go back and read what Dwight did, it wasn't his brainchild. He wasn't a megalomaniac who wanted to have control of everything that happened and have control every facet of the operation. He went out and found the best people he could. He put together a team, they planned, they did the best that they could, and then they left it to the soldiers and their leaders to implement that plan. As a result of his leadership and allowing people to rise to the occasion, we were able to successfully invade Normandy on June 6, 1944. My point is, we should be doing the same here.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I'm pleased to rise to speak to Bill 187, the Technical Standards and Safety Statute Law Amendment Act.

I just wanted to mention the government's comments on the presentation made by the member from Timmins—James Bay. It's helpful when you have a debate about something that you not only point out the things that are not quite right—which, of course, in this place is the opposition's job. We're not called the "government's cheerleaders"; we're called the Queen's loyal opposition, to make sure, when government introduces legislation, that what we propose or what we see as failing or short in the legislation is brought forward so the people of Ontario will know what it's going to do.

I always—I shouldn't say always, but invariably, when the government introduces a piece of legislation, the first thing I look at is not the legislation; I look at what they call the compendium. It usually points out what the minister is proposing to do with that piece of legislation. Then you go through the bill and see whether it actually meets that.

In this case—and that's why I brought it up in my short remarks—that isn't what is happening. The bill that is before us—I don't like to use the word "fluff"; I don't think anything we do in this place is fluff. But it has very little impact or will make very little difference in the things that took place during the Sunrise explosion or after the Sunrise explosion. It was mentioned that there were some shortcomings in the training of the people who were involved, and it has been mentioned, as I read the news reports of it, that there were instances where the inspections had not taken place.

But there was nothing ever mentioned in those that in the present legislation the inspections were not supposed to take place or that the authority to do those inspections was not in place. It was all there; it just wasn't being done.

I would hope that this legislation would have come forward with something that would have done that, to say, okay, self-regulation works, but there has to be some teeth in it when the organization doesn't do it, and obviously that's what happened here.

It seems that after the explosion there were quite a number—in fact, the government came out, first of all, to say that all propane facilities must be inspected as quickly as possible. They went through them all, and there were quite a number of them that were actually shut down because they had shortcomings that had to be corrected before they could continue operation. That wasn't because the legislation wasn't strong enough to do that; it's just that the organization was not thorough enough in keeping up the inspection process.

As I said, I was hoping that this legislation would come up with some direction on dealing with that, as to mandating what they must do, as opposed to allowing the minister, by regulation, to do things that, at this point, as we stand here and debate this bill, we don't know what that might be, and it would appear, because of the way the bill is written, that the minister doesn't know that either.

As I read the first three or four pages of the notes and the bill, it is primarily the reorganization of the TSSA as it's presently structured. I would just point out that the act is amended by adding

section 3.1, which "changes the status of the authority from a designated administrative authority under the Safety and Consumer Statutes Administration Act, 1996 to a statutory corporation under the Technical Standards and Safety Act, 2002." I'm not sure that that is going to—in fact, I am sure that it is not going to have a great impact on the safety of the industry or the work of that organization.

I don't think in the aftermath of the Sunrise explosion that there was anything there that said, you know, if you could just change the status of the organization from one type of status under the arm's-length from the government to another status, somehow things would have worked out differently. It goes on doing that same thing; it talks about making changes for the sake of making changes, as opposed to improving the operation of it.

I don't want to spend a lot of time on the Sunrise explosion, because that's not where I have had the most involvement with TSSA. In rural Ontario, the TSSA also looks after all the heating systems in private homes. They set the rules, and I think that's the challenge we face. I was hoping we would see some changes in here.

The company or the supplier of the fuel in our home heating systems in the majority of rural Ontario homes gets a notice, and you must have your heating system inspected before they can put any more oil in your tank. Again, this is the standard set-up, so they will make sure that they're all inspected.

I have no problem with that, but when they come in and make the inspection, the rules that were set in place and the requirements under that inspection—they say my furnace, which was put in 10 years ago—it was put in under code; it was put in by a professional installer—is now so many inches too close to the ceiling because of the heat convection, so I must put in a new furnace. It has to be a lower furnace because the association has collectively set a standard for what that clearance must be.

This is from personal experience. When they inspected my furnace, it wasn't the height from the ceiling, but it turns out that when I put the furnace in the house—I put in a new furnace and a new chimney, so it was all built to code and properly operational. When they came in to inspect it, I was told that it was all fine but I needed to put up a new chimney.

One would think a chimney would be a place to get rid of the excess combustible material, that as long as it was contained, solid, no leaks, high enough so the draft would get it at the top and wide open so there was no creosote on the inside to plug the chimney, that would be sufficient. So I said to him, "Why did you suggest I need a new chimney?" He said, "You have an eight-inch flue and that is too large a chimney and too large a flue for the size of your furnace." I thought that was rather strange.

As luck, or lack of luck, would have it, I was not at the deadline where it had to be corrected, so he said—this was a number of years ago—"Before 2007 you must have that corrected so we can keep supplying the oil."

We had occasion a year or so later to have someone else come in; we were changing the supplier of the fuel and they had to send in an inspector to make sure that the furnace was appropriate.

When they came in to check the furnace, I said, "I was told by a previous inspector that the chimney is too large." He said, "I don't know how he would have known that." I said, "He told me that it was eight inches and it should be only six for the size of the furnace." He said, "The standard is that you have to take a reading." There is a piece of equipment; they put a hole in the pipe right by the furnace and they measure that and if the draft on the chimney—in my case, it had to be between one and three; if the draft in the chimney is between that, you have a sufficient chimney.

He put it in there and it was a two. You couldn't get much better than that; immediately it was passed.

When the public asks the inspector, "Who sets that regulation?" they are told that it's the province of Ontario. I said, "I spend a little time with the province of Ontario in the Legislature and I hadn't been part of the debate that said that definition should be six inches or eight inches or whether it should be two, three or four." When we checked it with the TSSA, in fact, the TSSA collectively set it as an organization and then they get the government to approve it.

Again, I think having the same people who supply the product, who do the changes and also set the standard of the changes that are needed, is something that needs to be looked at. I would have hoped that would have been in this bill, but obviously that's not the case.

I just wanted to go back to the corporation and the things they're supposed to do under this. It may all be good, and I think it was used yesterday when it came to the good government debate.

One of the speakers from the government side said that there comes a time with all legislation that you need to review it to make sure it's kept up to date and you change the names that have been changed at ministries—I think the member from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock mentioned something about the Education Act still including that if you drove your horse to school, the school board was obligated to feed and look after the horse for the day while you were there. Things like that need to be changed.

But I don't think you do those types of changes and call that dealing with the problem that was pointed out when they originally started on the act, when they said that we had to do something because of the circumstances that surrounded the fire.

Here we have the direction of what the board is going to be able to do, the board that we changed the name of. It talks all about how they're going to inform and educate, but it doesn't really tell us the relationship between the minister and that board and whether in fact there's going to be any more oversight on behalf of the ministry to make the inspections and the remedial action to be taken any better than they were before. I wonder whether we are in fact improving the situation.

I see here there's a lot of—again, they talk about the safety, but there doesn't seem to be anything at this point in here that isn't that way already, except giving the minister the ability to make more appointments.

I would really like to say that if there's nothing wrong with the bill, then obviously one should support it because things aren't going to get any worse. Then why are we having this debate? We might just go on with another topic. The challenge we face—and we get back to the original comment by the member from Brant about the issue of the opposition never coming up with good suggestions and just telling what's wrong, and because the government introduced it, it's always bad, and because I'm in opposition, it's always good. That may be true, but that's not the intent. If the government would come forward with legislation that was good, I'd be happy to stand here and commend them on it.

But that's not the case with this legislation, because we are going to leave this debate and, as was mentioned, we're going to committee with the bill. The member from Timmins—James Bay is going to put forward his good suggestions on how the bill can be changed to make it a better bill. The government is not going to listen to a single one of those changes. They're going to come back and say, "See, we did it. Now we've solved this problem that the original compendium was supposed to solve," and the bill will do nothing of the kind.

If we had not been talking about the things that were short in this debate, the public would have never known. They would assume that the protection that was missing when the Sunrise explosion took place has now been remedied by this new piece of legislation. That is not the case, because this doesn't do anything with the problems that occurred there. That's why I think it's so important that we stand here and try to get the government to change their ways and listen to some of those recommendations.

The members have a smile across the aisle because they're suggesting that that's not the case. I would ask them to tell me how many opposition members in the last two years have been accepted at committee to change a bill meaningfully? None.

Mr. Mike Colle: A heck of a lot more than you did in eight years.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I notice that I touched a nerve. I'm not suggesting that they are not telling the truth, but any person who would stand on the other side—I wouldn't do it to the government, to say that they have never accepted one—any member on the government side who would say that any government that has had eight years in office and never accepted a single amendment is a liar.

I think it's so important to—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): I'd ask the honourable member to withdraw.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I withdraw that. I was just saying that any member who would think that no amendments had been made on the other party's behalf in all the time they were in office must have missed a lot of the committee meetings, because that in fact happens and it does happen all the time. My question was just: How often has it happened in the last two years? I'm sure that they can provide me with that information.

I don't have a lot to say about the positives of the bill because, like I said, it is a bill giving authority to the minister to make changes in the TSSA, and at this point in time, we have absolutely no idea what those changes are, or even what it is the minister is proposing to correct with the changes he's going to make by what this bill allows. I don't see the benefit of being here to have this debate, but I also don't see the benefit of passing this bill and leaving the assumption with people that we are solving the problems that presently exist with the TSSA, how it functions and what needs to be changed.

With that, I just don't see how the government proposes to correct the problems that they suggested were there. As the member across the aisle said when the Sunrise explosion took place, he immediately called the minister, saying, "We'd better get our people down there because there's a big problem." When they went down there, they found that there were things that needed to be corrected—and this bill was supposed to correct them, but I don't believe it does so.

With that, I will end my remarks and suggest that I would hope that they would take the advice of the very well-thought-out presentation by the member from Timmins—James Bay on what needs to be changed and that they would look at making those amendments to make this a bill that's worth voting for, and that, when it comes back—if those changes were made—we would look favourably on it. But at the present time, this bill is not going to serve the people of the province of Ontario well. I think that it needs a lot more work before it gets passed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Questions and comments?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I just want to repeat what I was trying to say earlier and speak on the comments that Mr. Hardeman made. I think the comment is fair: The purpose of the Legislature is for the government to be able to bring bills forward and to do the public business. The job of the assembly is to make sure that those bills make sense and that they're drafted in some way that achieves the public policy objective that they want in some sort of reasonable fashion.

The unfortunate part of what happens around here is that over the years—since I've been here, for 20 years, and it started before that—more and more, the process of committee has become weakened. We have not allowed members the freedom they need—as government members, backbench government members or opposition members—to really play the role that they should be playing on committee.

What I've seen far too often is that you go to a committee and you all of a sudden read a

section of the act and you go, "Well, the government wants to get to A but this particular

section doesn't get them there." So you make a recommendation to change the language in order to make sure that it works the way it should, and the legislative counsel agrees that your

interpretation of the act is such, the lawyers for the ministry agree that you are right in your

interpretation, and the government won't change it.

I think that is a very, very sad state of affairs, when you don't have a process by which members are able to exercise their duties here in a responsible manner at the committee level.

I was just trying to make the point that if we were to do more of that, I think you would end up with stronger legislation and the government, quite frankly, could say: "Look, we're a government that's introduced 60 bills in the past little while. We've accepted so many amendments from the opposition, and they've actually voted in favour of some legislation." Working together is not a weakness; I think it's a strength that a government could show. Unfortunately, I don't think this government is doing that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Questions and comments?

Mr. Jim Brownell: I'm pleased to have a couple of minutes to speak on this, this morning and to make comments with regard to the member from Oxford. He spent some time on the propane safety and the situation at Sunrise.

Certainly I appreciate the work and the effort from my good colleague from Eglinton—Lawrence on the morning, his action and the alerts he gave to people. But with regard to the after-effects of Sunrise, there was a propane safety review that made 40 recommendations to our government. We have enacted 33 of those 40 to date. If you don't understand and realize what's been done, I would suggest that you talk to your seatmate, the good member from York—Simcoe. She was at estimates yesterday when the minister went through every one of those recommendations and told us that they have been carried out—33 of them.

He also indicated that they were in the process of discussing three other recommendations with other ministries or authorities that have responsibility. Two are in this legislation. Recommendation 31 is, "Propane operators should be required to carry insurance as a condition of licensing," and recommendation 32 is, "When there is an imminent hazard to safety, and the facility operator will not or cannot act to correct it, TSSA inspectors should have the full and clear authority to ensure that the installation is made safe and to charge back the cost to the operator." Those are two that are part of this bill.

So have we done the work that was required after this explosion? Yes, we have; 33 of 40 recommendations, two here, and I believe that would make five more that we're working on. Three are before other ministries and two still have work required.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: I'm pleased to stand up and speak for a few moments on this bill. It's a bill that we've been waiting a long time for. The explosion happened 15 months ago, and now we're dealing with the issue here in the House and debating it.

It isn't as fulsome a bill as I think would be appropriate in dealing with an issue like this. Yes, some things were done and, yes, some recommendations were made and some recommendations have been enacted. But in essence, all this bill really does is delay a plan. The government has no plan, not for this and not for anything else. All it has done has been to give the minister more powers to think about how to move forward and do things later, so why is this something that Ontarians should have a lot of confidence and trust in?

The minister is now empowered to appoint less than a majority of the corporation directors, to appoint the chair and the vice-chair of the corporation's board. That means the minister now has a strong tie to that board. But why? If he trusts the board to do their work, why did he have to do that? Ontarians need more than just more ministerial involvement in their everyday lives. They need to know that this government has a pulse on what's going on.

The TSSA is responsible for the safety and inspection of fuels, pressure vessels, boilers, upholstered and stuffed articles, elevating and amusement devices. What does the minister know about any of these things? Why would the minister be involved in appointing people to a board he knows nothing about? It's a delay tactic.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Mike Colle: Just in the comments from my colleague from Oxford, I was disappointed in him resorting to schoolyard name-calling when it comes to debating a bill.

The point here is that, because the government in the Harris days willy-nilly privatized the inspection of these services without looking at the comprehensive reporting mechanisms and without looking at the consequences—

Interjections.

Mr. Mike Colle: They just said it was good to privatize safety inspection. They don't want to hear the consequences of their mismanagement in the past. But it happens to people innocently sitting in their homes, to the two innocent victims who died, and this is one instance. That's why government has to undertake stronger measures to oversee safety regulation in this province. That's why the minister undertook a propane safety review made to him by a panel of experts. Thirty-three recommendations were put forward to the minister; they have been implemented.

Then this bill followed. That's the lesson to be learned here: that when you farm out things like safety, meat inspectors, water inspectors, you just don't assume it's going to take care of itself by some kind of dream that you have about the private sector. The reality is that people's lives are at stake, whether it be with boilers, the safety of elevators—it's serious stuff. That's why you need government oversight. This bill gives us greater government oversight to ensure that the job being done by the TSSA is one that is under review and scrutiny.

I know the members opposite don't agree with that, but that's what we need in this province to protect our public, who depend on government to ensure that there are good water inspectors—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. The honourable member for Oxford has up to two minutes for his response.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I just want to point out, for the comments from the member from Eglinton—Lawrence—he suggests that when the TSSA was formed and given the authority to be self-regulating, that that's the problem. My whole presentation was based on, if that's the problem, why is the government not fixing that problem now? It just doesn't make sense to talk about how we know what's wrong—but we've got this bill and it doesn't fix the problem. It doesn't change what the member just said was the problem.

I want to point out that in

section 3.11, it lists the new corporation's authority. It's so much changed; now it's going to make some things so much better.

"

(1) The corporation shall appoint a chief safety and risk officer with the consent of the minister.

"

(2) The chief safety and risk officer shall independently review the corporation's activities or proposed activities related to the public safety responsibilities assigned to the corporation under this act and the regulations.

"

(3) The chief safety and risk officer may prepare"—may prepare—"a report on any matter related to the corporation's activities ... if the officer considers it in the public interest to do so.

"

(4) The chief safety and risk officer shall prepare an annual report and such other reports as may be requested by the board of directors or the minister."

These are all the things that they're supposed to do.

"

(5) Reports prepared by the chief safety and risk officer shall be made available at the corporation's annual meeting and shall be made available to the public."

This bill is really about how the organization has been set up—that the members from the government are suggesting was set up in totally the wrong fashion—and all it does is make a new way of reporting and giving the minister the authority to make regulations after the fact. When things go wrong, he can make a regulation to try to correct that.

If they wanted to change it, they should have changed it to a way that would have fixed the problem they suggested was there.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Mr. Howard Hampton: I just want to say a few words about this bill. I note, in listening to the comments, that there's a fair bit of reference here to history, so I feel compelled to say something about that history.

I remember when the former Conservative government brought in the legislation which had the effect of privatizing things like elevator inspection and, as we all now know, historically, the privatization of things like the inspection of propane operations.

I remember, for example, the now Minister of Transportation, Mr. Bradley, saying that this kind of privatization was terrible, wouldn't work, was going to put public health and public safety at risk. I remember a number of other people who are now cabinet ministers in the McGuinty Liberal government saying, "This is terrible. This will not work. This is going to lead to problems in public safety and public health."

Well, we had the awful and unfortunate example in North York. A large propane yard was not being handled properly, inspections were not being done, and there were terrible risks to public health and safety. And then, indeed, there was a terrible explosion and lives were lost—and millions of dollars of property damage. We were so fortunate that the explosion happened when it did, on a Sunday, because if it had happened, say, on a Monday morning when people were on their way to work, when people were working in some of the other operations in the area, we could have seen many more people killed. That's all part of the historical record.

I urge people to reflect on this bill that's being brought forward by the McGuinty Liberals, who said that the privatization of things like elevator inspection, propane yards and all kinds of other activities was going to put public health and safety at risk. What does this bill change? Are you going to see public inspection? No. Are you going to see, even sometimes, public inspection? No. Is it going to do anything to really change what the Harris Conservatives put in place? No, it's not. You're going to continue to have the TSSA, which is fundamentally a privatized operation.

It has all kinds of people who are in the business, whether it's the business of selling propane or the business of doing elevators, who are going to sit on the board of directors. Inspection is going to continue to be made by people who are not necessarily—we can't be sure if they're well trained. So the whole inspection process—nothing's going to change here.

What was originally condemned by many of the Liberal members of this Legislature is going to continue. The only thing that's going to happen is there's going to be a public relations veneer put over top of it. And that's what it is: a public relations veneer to give the impression that something is being done, to give the impression that public health and safety is going to be protected better, to give the impression that this issue of protecting the public and protecting people and protecting their health and safety is in the hands of a disinterested body that has as its primary function protecting the health and safety of the public.

That's what this bill is about. It's about giving the impression that something is being done. But once you pry beneath the oh-so-superficial veneer, nothing's changing. Nothing's really changing structurally. The same people are going to do the inspections. The same people are essentially going to be in charge of the TSSA. So we have here what is essentially a public relations gesture. That's what it is.

If I can put it in current context, let me compare it to the financial fiasco that happened in the United States just recently, because what happened, over a number of years, and much of it happened under the Bush government, there was essentially a deregulation and a sort of privatization of financial regulations in that country.

People could take a bundle of mortgages that probably never should have been granted in the first place—a bundle of mortgages; there was nothing standing behind those mortgages—and say, "These are very secure financial instruments, and the public would be prudent to buy them." People bought them and then found out there was only a very superficial veneer protecting the public; underneath it was a bag of snakes. And that's what we have here.

I fully admit the Conservatives, when they passed the legislation to privatize the inspection of things like elevators and propane dumps—what was created was a bag of snakes, and it was only a matter of time before public health and safety was put at risk. But have the McGuinty Liberals done away with the bag of snakes here? Not at all. The bag of snakes still exists. The only thing that we have on top of the bag of snakes is this superficial veneer that's meant to say to the people of Ontario, "Oh, everything's okay. Everything's going to be all right. Everything's going to be fine," when, fundamentally, it is the same bag of snakes that existed before.

I'm sure we'll get some annual reports. Whether these annual reports have any integrity to them and whether they have any substance to them, I think we'll have to wait and see. But I have no more confidence that this superficial veneer is going to do anything more to protect the public and the public's health and safety than existed before, because underneath it, it's the same old bag of snakes.

I expect we'll see another press release from the government announcing that it has taken great steps to protect the public and it has taken great steps to protect public health and safety. And we'll probably see another press release and another press release. But underneath it all, it is the same old bag of snakes—just a superficial public relations exercise to make the public feel good while the public continues to be at risk in terms of its health and safety.

New Democrats don't see a lot of substance here. We don't see a lot of integrity here. We see another public relations exercise by a government that's very good at them. I will give this government credit: They are very, very good at public relations exercises—very good at them—but underneath, it's still the same old bag of snakes, and that continues to be a serious problem for the public of Ontario; it continues to be a serious problem in terms of protecting the public of Ontario.

Public health and safety, in my view, is one of the most basic services that people should expect from government: The government will protect basic public health and safety and the government will not contract out basic health and safety.

If I can just give another example of where this was contracted out and where it has gone wrong, let's look at driver licensing and driver testing in Ontario today. That was contracted out. The operation that is now running it—if you care to look outside; look in Ontario but also look outside of Ontario—has a terrible record. If you look at the other jurisdictions where they operate, they have a terrible record.

If you go and talk to the people who are doing the driver testing, they will tell you that full-time people who were dedicated to the job, who were very knowledgeable about it have been replaced by part-time people, who really, in many cases, do not have any dedication to the job—it's just another job to them, another part-time job to add on to the two other part-time jobs they have—and public health and safety is at risk.

So we see real problems with this legislation. We see real problems with it, and no matter how many press releases the McGuinty Liberals put out and no matter how many announcements and reannouncements they put out that they're going to better protect public safety, underneath it all, it is still the same old bag of snakes and public health and safety continue to be at risk.

We need to do better in Ontario. We need to do much better. But I suspect it will only be a matter of time before this public relations exercise is exposed and we have another incident. It may not be a propane facility; it may be an elevator, it may be some other device that falls under the control of the TSSA, where inspections are not being done properly, where the interests of the operators are taken to have more importance than the interests of protecting public health and safety, and we'll have another incident. When that happens, I think this bag of snakes with the superficial veneer that we're seeing today will be exposed again.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): It being just about 10:15 of the clock, this House stands in recess until 10:30, at which time we will have question period.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: I would like to welcome the winners of the Ontario Trillium Foundation's Great Grants Awards. Joining us today to watch question period are representatives from le Salon du livre du Grand Sudbury, Actua, Foodlink Waterloo, Fools for Health and the Youth Serving Agencies' Network. Welcome to Queen's Park.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Today is the last day for Kira Foreman-Tran, our page from Oakville, and joining us in the member's gallery are Kim Tran and Bruce Foreman, the proud parents of Kira. Please extend a warm Queen's Park welcome to them.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I'm glad to welcome a group from Waterloo Lutheran Seminary. The seminary is Canada's oldest and largest Lutheran theological seminary and is a federated college of Wilfrid Laurier University located in Waterloo. They are here today to participate in the Interfaith Social Assistance Reform Coalition day here at Queen's Park.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I would like to welcome a couple of women: Ruth Rideout, who is here today from Beaverton, and Valerie Andrews of Origins Canada, from Richmond Hill. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: We'd certainly like to welcome today a delegation representing various cities from the People's Republic of China. They come from three various cities and represent the Ministry of Construction of the People's Republic of China. Leading the delegation is the president, Mr. Tuan, Hongjun; Mr. Wang, Tongjie; Mr. Ma, Weidong; Ms. Zhang, Yuling; Mr. Zhang, Reimin; Ms. Xu, Huiling; Mr. Liu, Chuanping; Mr. Zeng, Changtai; and Ms. Ren, Huijuan. Let's welcome them warmly to the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome, visiting Queen's Park from the riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London, Mike Pepe and his students from Regina Mundi secondary school, who will be joining us in the galleries today. Welcome to Queen's Park.

VISIT OF PRINCE OF WALES AND DUCHESS OF CORNWALL

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I think it's important that we put on the record that, on behalf of the Ontario Legislature, we take this opportunity to welcome His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall, to formally welcome them to the province of Ontario. We thank the government of Ontario for their warm welcome to Their Highnesses last night.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I also would like all members to join me in taking an opportunity to thank this group of pages. This is their last day in the Legislature and we want to thank you all very much for the great things that you've done to assist us. And who knows, some of you may very well be back sitting in these very seats where we are. So, on behalf of the Legislature, thank you to the pages.

Applause.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC INQUIRY LEGISLATION

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Attorney General. Minister, do you really think it's a good idea to rewrite the Public Inquiries Act at the same time as the public is calling for an inquiry into your billion-dollar eHealth boondoggle?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: From time to time over the years the government of the day wishes to call a public inquiry, wishes to obtain information from an independent source with a review of facts and circumstances in order to guide either legislative initiatives or policy initiatives. That advice needs to be advice that will be directed to the issue involved and can be received in a timely way and the most effective way. Our Public Inquiries Act has not been updated in many years and what we're proposing are a series of additional tools to provide the public inquiry process, to help get the right information, at the right time, for the right questions, in the right way.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: The timing here is interesting. The Auditor General reported the eHealth scandal on October 7. On October 13, the Leader of the Opposition called upon the Premier to appoint a public inquiry into the billion-dollar eHealth scandal. Since then, the Premier has done all he can to stonewall every question we've had about who got rich, what connections they had to the McGuinty government and the involvement of former staff and ministers. Then, on October 27, they introduced a new Public Inquiries Act.

Attorney General, do you really expect taxpayers to believe that the timing of this was just a coincidence?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: So a review of the proposed legislation shows, and will show, that the traditional, unlimited-in-any-way inquiry can still take place. What the proposals enable, for example, is a commissioner who is fully independent to be able to narrow the issue, focus the issue, obtain evidence that everybody agrees upon in an acceptable way; enables there to be some assistance in framing the issue and the question; also, all of it directed for the purpose of ensuring that the answer the public wishes to obtain can be received as quickly, effectively and cost-effectively as the public will need it to be received.

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: It's the same old pattern where the McGuinty Liberals will do everything they can to avoid answering the hard questions. We saw it first with our questions about the economy: first, when they released public accounts late on a Friday, and then when they rushed out the H1N1 announcement a day before the economic update. We saw it when they dumped boxes of documents, Cancer Care Ontario records, on the same day the auditor reported on the eHealth scandal. Now we're seeing it again with a new Public Inquiries Act that comes two weeks after there was a call for an inquiry into the eHealth scandal.

Minister, did the Premier put you up to this?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I say very gently to the opposition that there were some weeks when they were calling for an inquiry on a different issue almost every day.

The Public Inquiries Act remains as strong as it ever was, but would propose to be strengthened: additional tools to enable that the inquiry be focused so if you actually need an answer, within a few months you could obtain an answer; if you were actually concerned about the cost of multi-year inquiries, you could help focus the inquiry and contain the cost; if there were a number of facts and circumstances on which there were no evidentiary dispute, the commissioner could benefit. We need the right answer at the right time for the right questions.

PUBLIC INQUIRY LEGISLATION

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: My question is for the Attorney General. As chief law officer of the crown, you're supposed to rise above politics. Aren't you concerned about compromising your office by getting wrapped up in the Premier's scheme to gut the Public Inquiries Act so the Premier won't have to answer questions about the billion-dollar eHealth scandal?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: We take a different position than the one being proposed by the honourable member. In fact, a fair and complete reading of what's in the proposed public inquiries legislation does not reduce it but enhances it; does not diminish it but expands its opportunities and scope. A fair reading will see that not only can you call a traditional, non-time-limited, very expansive, come-back-in-five-years inquiry, but you can also now, while maintaining the independence, call an inquiry that will be more focused, with more scope, more timely and more cost-effective, of greater benefit to the people of the province, who we all serve.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Taxpayers are on the hook for a billion-dollar eHealth scandal. At the same time as running a record $24.7-billion deficit and planning a greedy HST tax grab, the McGuinty Liberals have done nothing to recover the billion dollars they wasted in this scandal.

While the auditor's report spotted the problem, it does not assign blame to those who got rich on taxpayers' dollars. If the Premier won't tell us who is to blame, then we need a public inquiry. Are you gutting the Public Inquiries Act in an effort to block this necessary inquiry into the McGuinty Liberals' waste of taxpayers' dollars in the eHealth scandal?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: First of all, the member reminds us that we should all actually read the words of the auditor before reaching conclusions, where he said "we saw no evidence of this." Even a public inquiry would deal with the evidence; so the auditor reaches the conclusion.

I say, secondly, the suggestion that the proposed legislation would be less than what is there now is completely wrong. The proposed legislation, in fact, would not only be what we have, it would have additional scope. We want to deliver to the people of Ontario what they need, when they need it, in the way they need it, and not have to spend too many millions of—

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

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: The new act isn't just a bunch of amendments; it's a total rewrite of the existing Public Inquiries Act. Something this monumental shouldn't share time with other items in an omnibus bill.

The Premier wouldn't let go of his dirty secrets about who got rich in the eHealth scandal—were they Liberals?—and why a bureaucrat broke the law for months to block the auditor from investigating the billion-dollar boondoggle. At the same time as the public is calling for a public inquiry that reveals these secrets, the Attorney General is trying to make it harder to appoint an inquiry. As chief law officer of the crown, you are supposed to rise above politics. Isn't the Attorney General in a conflict of interest?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: As chief law officer of the crown, suggestions in this House that people have broken the law are not appropriate and should be withdrawn by that member—completely wrong. We have a rule of law in this province and in this country that needs to be respected, even within the House that makes the laws—completely wrong and completely inappropriate.

He calls—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Attorney General.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Whatever inquiry is conducted by the auditor or any other forum has to be based on evidence, not the fiction that may be thrown by members opposite. The people of Ontario deserve no less than the conclusions based on facts and a strengthened Public Inquiries Act.

FLU IMMUNIZATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of Health. Yesterday, the Minister of Health told parents that they would have to wait to vaccinate their school-aged children against H1N1 because this government didn't have enough vaccine to immunize kids in kindergarten. If that is true, why were millionaire professional athletes able to get the vaccination?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me tell you that our focus remains on our highest-priority groups. Today we are really emphasizing how important it is that parents, siblings and caregivers of infants get that vaccination. They are part of our priority groups. We are sticking to the priority groups for the foreseeable future. We are hoping to be able to expand that list when supplies become available.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The minister did not answer my question. We're talking about professional, high-performance athletes, the vast majority of whom are in their twenties and thirties. But they're not the only ones who got to jump the queue. Many others have done the same at posh private clinics in Ontario. With enough money, it seems that anyone can buy their way to vaccination while kindergarten kids and their worried parents are told to wait. How could this minister have allowed this to happen?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I can assure the members of this House and the people of Ontario that I have heard reports that some people have jumped the queue. I want you to know that this is entirely unacceptable.

We are relying on our professionals to respect the priority lists. We have a real challenge in this province getting the vaccine to the people who will benefit from it the most. I have to say that we are reinforcing the message with our doctors and those who are providing the vaccine across the province.

I am looking closely into the case of the allegation that the member has made.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: In Ontario it seems quite all right for high-rollers and professional sports teams to get preferential treatment while parents of school-aged children are forced to wait—indefinitely, now—to vaccinate their kids.

The Alberta government has taken this issue seriously. They launched an immediate investigation, and heads are starting to roll. Will this minister continue to bury her head in the sand, or will she get to the bottom of how this happened and take the steps necessary to ensure that it doesn't happen again?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I share the outrage of the leader of the third party. It is completely unacceptable for anyone to be jumping the queue.

This is a global pandemic we are in the midst of now. There are priority groups. Those groups need to be respected. I don't care how famous you are, how wealthy you are, how well connected you are; you have a responsibility to all of the others to respect that priority list.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): New question. The leader of the third party.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The responsibility lies with this minister, and that's what she's not acknowledging.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Minister of Finance. Ontario families understand that we're in tough times, but they're worried about a system that has been cut to the bone already. Local emergency rooms are closing even while the H1N1 issue stretches capacity. Parents are fundraising over half a billion dollars a year to cover funding gaps in schools. If the government is actually interested in reducing costs—and it should be—why did government MPPs block a review by the auditor into high levels of compensation for health sector executives?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Our government is taking a comprehensive look at expenditures.

I do want to point out to the people of Ontario that emergency rooms are not being closed. That kind of hyperbole has no place in a serious debate.

There are new investments being made in health care. Our expenditures on health care have far exceeded the rate of inflation. We have reduced wait times across a variety of important procedures.

As we move forward into the years ahead, we will have to get Ontario back to a balanced budget. We have begun a process to do that. I was pleased to note that Moody's bond rating service held Ontario's rating as steady, late last week. We have begun this process. I will begin processes with respect to public consultations. I know that Ontarians will work together to get Ontario back to balance and ensure that we can compete heartily in the future.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The finance minister had better well know that emergency rooms are closing in this province: Port Colborne, Fort Erie, Matthews Memorial. There are a number of them that are closing, and that is the fact.

If this government was actually concerned with the fiscal balance, they would look at all of their spending, including tax giveaways to the corporate sector.

Does this minister think it's consistent to ask families to accept the closure of emergency rooms, schools that rank behind 46 US states in per-student funding, and higher sales taxes, while his government hands out $2 billion a year in corporate tax giveaways?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The states of Michigan, New York, California and Indiana are laying teachers off, firing teachers, getting rid of them, cutting public services. We made a decision not to do that, and we stand by that decision.

I'd also suggest to the member that she may want to talk about the personal tax cuts, the fact that the Daily Bread Food Bank and a range of other poverty groups have applauded this government for the most progressive tax reform package in history.

Are these easy decisions? No. Do the times call for leadership? Yes.

That member and her party are about the status quo. They're about not responding to the jobless situation. We're about change. We're about rebuilding the economy. We're about creating jobs. That's what the policy is about. That's what it'll do, and it will, in fact, make our public services more affordable and more accessible to all Ontarians.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: There is nothing progressive about whacking the little guy and filling the pockets of the big guy. That's what this Liberal government is all about.

With each passing day, this government grows more out of touch with real Ontarians. Well-connected corporate executives and consultants see a government that caters to them, as families are forced to deal with the closure of local emergency rooms, organize bake sales to cover the cost of school essentials, and pay 8% more—8% more—for gasoline, hydro and other daily living essentials.

Why should Ontarians believe that this government has their interests at heart when it shows them daily that it just does not care about their challenges?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I enjoyed the lecture from the leader of the third party, but let me tell her what Hugh Mackenzie said. He's the economist and research associate at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, and he also chaired the NDP Fair Tax Commission, which we'll talk about a little later on. Here's what he said: "Ontario's 2009-10 budget establishes the right direction.... It provides substantial economic stimulus. It is consistent with the new orthodoxy that relies heavily on governments to help rebuild damaged economies. It imposes some coherence on an incoherent federal plan.

It increases support for low-income families and individuals. It modernizes Ontario's consumption tax." I'm with Hugh Mackenzie, prominent New Democrat. I know he has told you the same thing.

I suggest you listen to your own economist, I suggest you listen to your own adviser, and join us as we modernize the economy to create jobs and—

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

FLU IMMUNIZATION

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Minister of Health. We know the federal government supplied Ontario with 2.2 million doses of the H1N1 vaccine. How many are on the shelf? Who knows? The minister sure doesn't. It could be 100,000; it could be half a million; it could be a million.

If you're running a 10-kilometre race and you know you've got one kilometre left, that means you've run nine kilometres. If you buy a dozen doughnuts and eight get eaten, that means you have four left. If you have 2.2 million doses of vaccine and you're talking about running out over the weekend, you must have some idea of your current inventory.

Minister, how many doses of vaccine have actually gone into arms?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: What I can tell you is that we are on track, according to our public health units across the province, to have administered the 2.2 million doses that we have received. We are on track to have those administered by the end of the weekend. Because we have expanded the number of places where people can get the vaccine, it is difficult to determine, on a day-to-day basis, exactly how much vaccine has found its way into the arms of Ontarians. But they have assured us that we're on track to get the vaccine protecting Ontarians by the end of this weekend. I will complete that in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Well, I'm still not getting an answer.

Here are just a few things in Ontario that the McGuinty Liberals track more closely than the number of flu vaccines: the number of fish restocked in lakes, broken down by lake and fish species; eggs laid by chickens each year; calls to the bear wise hotline, including how many calls went to a live operator.

The health minister is managing the largest flu pandemic in 40 years, so why can't she tell us the number of vaccines in arms and those still on the shelf?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: What the member opposite should know is that it was a very high priority for us to engage more family physicians in the administration of vaccines. One of the things physicians told us was that they would be happy to deliver it, but the burden of reporting was a barrier to that, so they report to us weekly, not daily, on that.

What I can tell you, though, is that in public health clinics alone, about half a million have been vaccinated. There are another half-million doses in doctors' offices, much of which has been used for immunizations. Our hospitals and our other health care centres like long-term-care homes have another 350,000 doses that are being administered as we speak. We're working very, very hard to reach our target of administering those 2.2 million doses by the end of the weekend.

FLU IMMUNIZATION

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. Fran Martens is a front-line personal support worker in Windsor. She, like all of her colleagues, bathes, cleans and assists frail people of all ages in their homes. Although Fran is in close contact with 11 patients and their families every single day, she was refused the H1N1 vaccination because she was told she is not on the priority list.

Fran Martens is out and about today doing her rounds in Windsor and she's scared. She's scared because she is a care provider for persons at high risk of H1N1 and she doesn't want to bring harm to them.

My question to the minister is simple: Why are PSWs, these crucial health care workers, not considered in the priority list for H1N1?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I can assure the member opposite that personal support workers are considered health care workers and they are in the high-priority group, so I would urge them to get their vaccination now. They do not have to wait. The lineups are eliminated in many places and certainly way, way down across the province. Personal support workers are health care workers. They are in the priority group. I would happily look into this particular case if a particular public health unit is not including them in the priority groups. They are a priority group.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: I'm glad to hear the minister say this, because she is the only one who is. We've checked throughout the province. The story of Fran Martens is repeated in every single CCAC throughout this province. There has been no directive from the community care access centres to home care agencies to encourage home care workers to get the H1N1 vaccine. In fact, if you look on the CCAC websites, you will not even see the mention of H1N1 on any of them. The CCACs oversee home care, and workers are in the community each and every day caring for the sick, many of them persons at high risk for H1N1.

These workers are susceptible to the virus just like any of us, but they can also transmit the virus to the homes where they visit.

My question is simple: Why are home care workers, this important component of our health care system, not part of the pandemic plan?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I completely agree with the member opposite: Personal support workers are health care workers. They are covered. If that is in fact not clear to the public health units, to the long-term-care homes and so on, we will absolutely clarify that. Personal support workers are part of the high-priority group under the health care worker category.

FLU PANDEMIC PREPAREDNESS

Mr. Eric Hoskins: My question is also for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. The H1N1 pandemic has led to increased activity at hospitals right across the province. We've seen stories about hospitals coping with increased visits to their emergency departments. Sudbury Regional Hospital, for example, has seen a 30% surge in ER visits, and, as we know, it's not the only hospital experiencing a surge due to H1N1 cases. Some hospitals have even had to cancel elective surgeries in order to manage the incoming stream of patients.

We need our hospitals to be able to respond effectively to emergency situations as they emerge. Could the minister please tell this House how hospitals are managing the influx of H1N1-related visits?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me assure you, all hospitals in Ontario do have a plan. All hospitals are seeing an increase. They are rising to the challenge. They are coping with the increase in visits to their ERs. They are well equipped to deal with H1N1.

Since SARS, we have developed a robust critical care strategy to handle a sudden increase in volume in our intensive care units. Already there are 1,800 critical care ventilators across the province, and because we're taking H1N1 seriously, we're adding 216 more.

In 2006, we announced $90 million in annual funding for the provincial critical care strategy. This funding has helped hospitals supply new beds, improve technology and hire staff. It allows hospitals to manage that increased demand without compromising patient safety—

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

Mr. Eric Hoskins: I am also concerned about getting the vaccine to pregnant women. I know that when my wife was pregnant, and under the care of midwives, we were vigilant about taking every precaution we could to protect the health of both my wife, and our soon-to-be-born son. H1N1 is no different. I've heard from pregnant women in my riding of St. Paul's who want to get the vaccine as soon as they can.

I understand that the recommendation agreed upon by Canada's chief medical officers of health is for healthy pregnant women in the first half of their pregnancy to wait for the unadjuvanted vaccine. We heard yesterday that Ontario has now received the unadjuvanted vaccine, but pregnant women and their families are anxious to know when they'll be able to receive it.

Can the minister please provide an update on when all pregnant women can begin getting their H1N1 shots?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I just want to underline how important it is that pregnant women do get the H1N1 vaccine. We need to protect them, and we need to protect their babies—their unborn children.

Canada has received its first shipment of the unadjuvanted vaccine. Ontario got 86,800 doses. That's enough for all pregnant women in the province. Health units are receiving the vaccine as we speak. Some are beginning to administer it today, as in Ottawa, for example. Flu clinics are distributing the 5,500 doses they received. Some health units are holding clinics just for pregnant women; some are sending the vaccine to local doctors and are instructing pregnant women where to go.

I encourage all pregnant women to talk to their doctors and find out what's right for them. We know how important the health of pregnant women and their babies is to them and their families.

PUBLIC INQUIRY LEGISLATION

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: My question is to the Attorney General. Hundreds of millions of dollars were wasted in untendered contracts and sweetheart deals with Liberal-friendly consultants in the billion-dollar eHealth scandal. Liberal friends were appointed to, and then disappeared from, the eHealth board. The Premier's own Management Board waived rules prohibiting untendered contracts so it could hand out deals itself. Liberals got rich, patients got nothing, and taxpayers footed the bill.

Why is it that rather than doing something to get the money back, you're gutting the Public Inquiries Act? Is it so taxpayers will never find out who got rich on their money?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: A few facts: First, I'm very pleased to have received the report, which made some very specific conclusions and concluded that many of the conclusions outlined by my honourable friend are not in fact the case.

Second, there is a lot of work that was produced by the team working on electronic health records. It wasn't good enough. We need the last part. That's being strengthened by the Minister of Health.

Third, we have greatly improved and in fact changed procedures that have existed for decades in this House to ensure increased accountability, increased transparency, and a better control over money—the same procedures that were in place when my friend's party was part of the government. We will continue to do what's required to ensure the most effective government is delivered to the people of the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: The Attorney General's inaction in this matter is very disturbing. The auditor points out examples of contractors making off with taxpayers' dollars in all sorts of questionable deals. The new CEO of eHealth told the public accounts committee that she's not doing anything to recover tax dollars from the deals that she herself called inappropriate. The Attorney General is gutting the Public Inquiries Act, so it will be harder to recover the billions of dollars wasted in this scandal.

The McGuinty Liberals know who made the money—they made the deals—but we don't, because the auditor didn't name them. Doesn't the lack of effort to recover wasted tax dollars have anything to do with who got the money?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Just to circle back to the legislation, which is supposedly the reason for the question, the proposals for the Public Inquiries Act in fact add to it, not take away from it.

When a public inquiry is called, when any form of report or inquiry or study is done by a government or an independent official, you want to get the answer to the question. You want to get it in a timely fashion. You'd rather not spend more money than you have to to get it. You want to get it so you can act on it and make government or procedures or processes more effective.

We were very greatly assisted by the auditor's report. We have changed procedures that have been in place for decades, including under the government opposite. They had every opportunity to change them, but did not. So we have changed them—

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

TOXICS REDUCTION

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. A consultation on draft regulations for the Toxics Reduction Act has ended. Groups like the Canadian Cancer Society, the Ontario College of Family Physicians and the Ontario Lung Association feel the act is now far too weak. Why is the minister gutting his own bill?

Hon. John Gerretsen: The facts couldn't be further from the truth that this member has said. The reality is that we are passing the strongest rules and regulations with respect to toxics reduction in this province. We are basically modelling it on the law that was passed in Massachusetts a number of years ago, and the amount of toxic materials that are being used in the manufacturing process as a result of the law they passed has been significantly decreased.

What we want our companies to do is, first of all, come up with plans that clearly show how they intend to reduce the amount of toxic materials they're using in the manufacturing process, and then we want them to implement those plans. That'll take some time.

We have the strongest law that we possibly can in this matter, and I think the organizations he mentioned have certainly mentioned that to us, as well; that they believe this is the right way to go.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Those groups have said that the regulations don't deliver what has to be delivered. In fact, this minister continues to use in this act the National Pollutant Release Inventory, the federal system that the federal Auditor General has criticized roundly as being inadequate.

When is the minister going to stop relying on the Harper government for environmental protection in this province and actually bring forward laws that will protect Ontarians?

Hon. John Gerretsen: I can tell you that the National Pollutant Release Inventory lists some 250 different substances that have to be reported on. We want to strengthen that system, and another way in which we're doing that is we are investing taxpayers' dollars heavily in the new green chemistry centre, which is going to come up with alternative products that can be used, instead of the toxic materials that are being used.

This is a tough law, the toughest law in Ontario. We've modelled it on legislation elsewhere in North America that has worked. We know it will work. The end result is that the people of Ontario will be better protected from a health and safety viewpoint. That's really what it's all about. It's all about having fewer toxins in our environment, so that the health of the people of Ontario is fully protected.

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: My question is for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Six years ago, the Ontario government's relationship with aboriginal people was at an all-time low, but since then our government has been working hard to build a strong, positive relationship with aboriginal people, leadership and communities across the province.

Last week, ministers of aboriginal affairs from across Canada, including the federal Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, met with leadership from five national aboriginal organizations. The meeting followed through on a commitment made by our Premier at the last Council of the Federation to host a meeting on aboriginal issues, specifically lifelong learning and economic development. Would the minister tell us more about what happened at last week's meeting?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Thank you for the question. I was indeed honoured to chair this federal-provincial-territorial-aboriginal meeting. In fact, it was the first time that aboriginal affairs ministers have gotten together across the country along with aboriginal leaders since Kelowna. So we were very, very proud that Ontario led the charge to make this happen.

Our Premier, in fact, over a year ago spoke out at a first ministers' conference indicating the need to move aboriginal issues back to the federal and national forefront. That's exactly what this meeting was intended to do and what it accomplished. In our meeting, we focused on how we could provide aboriginal people with more opportunities for education and economic development. In addition, we're looking forward to getting together again in April, where we'll solidify those recommendations, and looking forward to making much more progress in these areas, working together.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. Ensuring that First Nations, Metis and Inuit people have access to education and economic development opportunities will help to build a brighter future for aboriginal people and Ontario as a whole. We need to make sure that aboriginal youth, communities and families have the right opportunities to succeed. Discussing ways to provide more education and economic development opportunities for Ontario's fastest-growing population is a good step forward.

Could the minister tell us what the next steps are following the federal-provincial-territorial-aboriginal meeting?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The member is absolutely right. This working group was formed last week, and we're working on ways to close the socioeconomic gaps that exist between the aboriginal population in Ontario and across the country and the rest of Canada. We are making these recommendations and will be making them to a meeting of the Council of the Federation, with all the Premiers scheduled to meet this coming August. The working group is committed to meet next April, and that's where we hope to solidify some of the very important recommendations and the direction we will be taking.

I want to say that we should all be very, very proud of our Premier in this province, who was the first Premier to call for a first ministers' meeting on aboriginal issues, about a year or so ago. We hope that these recommendations will indeed lead to a first ministers' conference down the road.

It's great that Ontario, which was behind the other provinces six years ago, is now a leader—

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

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Last May, in a strange and stunning display of legislative incompetence, Liberal MPPs voted down presumptive legislation for volunteer firefighters. The minister says he's working on this and plans to extend to our volunteer firefighters the same workers' compensation protection that full-time firefighters have now had for years. Will he finally do this today when he makes his "important announcement" outside this House in Brant county?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I thank the member for the question.

First off, I had the opportunity, the honour and the privilege to be at the rededication of the firefighters' memorial at the beginning of October, after some cowardly vandals desecrated that memorial. To hear the firefighters, fire inspectors and their families speak of the difficult, life-threatening work that firefighters do, it really touched me and all those who were present, and I know it touches all the communities across this great province of Ontario.

That's why in 2007 Premier McGuinty brought forward, with consent from this entire House, presumptive legislation for firefighters, and the member is quite right—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Arnott: If this minister has something important to announce, he should make that announcement right here in this House. Instead, it would appear that he's planning to go to a riding represented by a member who, in debate, said he would support my bill, but a few minutes later stood to vote against it.

Again, my question is to the minister: What took you so long? Why did Liberal members vote against a bill that would have fixed this problem last spring? Why won't he admit that any action he might take in the future would be thanks to pressure from the PC caucus and, most importantly, from volunteer firefighters themselves? Finally, why won't this minister assure all volunteer firefighters here and now that they will finally be treated the same as their professional full-time counterparts?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: It is the McGuinty government that took leadership on presumptive legislation for firefighters across the province of Ontario. At that time, when that legislation was passed in this House, Premier McGuinty said that the legislation is open to part-time and volunteer firefighters and that we would reach out to our stakeholders and our partners. Those stakeholders and partners—the Fire Fighters Association of Ontario, the fire chiefs' association, the WSIB and others—will be present this afternoon.

I am going to Paris, Ontario, where the president of the Fire Fighters Association of Ontario resides; that's why we are going to Paris, Ontario. The other reason is because we have a champion in the member for Brant, Dave Levac, who has shaped and informed this legislation. We are—

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

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. The McGuinty government advertises a six- to eight-week wait for access to adoption records in this province, when it really takes up to 36 months. What is the government's plan for ensuring its six- to eight-week turnaround time is actually met?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Yes, the adoption modification in the legislation was very successful and we have had a lot of requests. It's not the first time that I hear this comment, so we are investigating the matter. If you have any specific cases, I'd like to know and we will act accordingly.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What the minister didn't say is they rolled out a program and didn't put the infrastructure in place to actually deliver it.

Ruth Rideout and Valerie Andrews are here today, representing thousands of adoptees who have already waited far, far too long for their records. The McGuinty government has created a customer service nightmare of delays, backlogs and lack of tracking. Ruth waited 19 weeks and received incomplete information. Valerie waited 20 weeks and the CAS says delivering all her records is going to take another 36 months.

With November being Adoption Month, will the minister agree to meet with people like Ruth and Valerie and to fix Ontario's adoption disclosure system once and for all?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I'll turn that over to the Minister of Government Services.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I'm actually very pleased to provide some information about the data, such as how many applications we have received and what's happening with them.

As of August 17, 2009, the ministry had received 6,505 applications for disclosure vetoes from adopted persons or birth parents who prefer to keep their personal information private. The ministry also received 1,500 applications from people who agreed to allow information regarding their cases to be shared but requested that they not be contacted by the other party. The ministry also received 2,100 applications from people indicating their contact preferences.

We have received a lot of information and a lot of applications. We are working through it and responding to them as quickly as possible.

RAIL LINE CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Mr. Minister, you gave a green light to the approval of the Georgetown corridor rail expansion environmental assessment, which includes the Pearson-Union line. At the same time, however, you also introduced 18 strict conditions placed on the approvals—that is, the expansion.

However, there are some questions that need to be answered. One of the important questions that need to be answered is your condition that all trains running along that line be tier 4 diesel trains, which are supposed to be clean. Some of my constituents want to know what exactly these tier 4 diesel trains are, when they will be available and how they will protect human health and our environment.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Let me first of all applaud the members from Davenport and from York South—Weston for their advocacy in this matter, because they've been very concerned about this throughout.

The 18 tough conditions include the requirement that Metrolinx implement the newest technology, the tier 4 engine technology. Now, while the technology is not yet available, the EPA standards in the States have changed to the effect that they have to be available by 2015. From past experience, when these kinds of conditions are imposed by the EPA, manufacturers will actually design to the EPA standards. They know what standards are expected of them by 2015. It means that the newest line will have the newest technology right from day one, because the line is expected to come on stream by 2015.

The result will be that there will be a 90% reduction in the particulate matter that is being emitted over the technology that's available today, and also—

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

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: A reduction in nitrogen oxide: I'd like to know more about that. Thank you, Minister.

While the decision on the environmental assessment has been made, there remains much more to be done. At a recent meeting attended by more than 1,000 residents, one issue was pretty prominent. My constituents want to know that they will continue to be consulted, and in what way.

One of the conditions, Minister, that you placed on this Metrolinx development—you actually imposed these 18 conditions, and they need to be implemented in terms especially of air monitoring and the reporting plan. That's my question. For instance, the Toronto District School Board's health committee voted to have a role in the ongoing air monitoring study. Will the minister accommodate their request and include the TDSB and our residents in the decision-making process, since they are directly affected by this significant—

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

Hon. John Gerretsen: Let me just continue my answer from before. The new technology will have a 90% particulate matter reduction as well as an 80% nitrogen oxide reduction.

And, yes, one of the other conditions is the fact that Metrolinx has to develop and implement an ambient air monitoring and reporting plan, and that plan must be put into place after consultation with the public. Obviously, the Toronto District School Board will be consulted throughout. They've got a major interest in this as well, as there are schools in the immediate area.

Metrolinx, as a matter of fact, is required to create a working group that contains, at minimum, Toronto Public Health and Environment Canada, and I would strongly suggest that it would include the Toronto District School Board, as well as, obviously, the public from the general area.

We want to make sure that we can reduce the amount of pollution that's in the air by getting as much transit in the GTA as available. This is a major step forward, but we also want to make sure—

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

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

Mr. Frank Klees: To the minister responsible for children: On October 20, I brought to the minister's attention the multi-million dollar cut to the York Region Children's Aid Society. In response, the minister committed—and I quote from Hansard—that she would work "to ensure that children are put first and that their outcomes are a priority" and that she would work with the society. She further committed, and I quote again: "Our regional office is ... working with the York CAS to develop a financial plan to address the challenges."

I'd like to ask the minister this: Have those meetings taken place? What progress is her regional office making with the York Region CAS to ensure that that society is adequately funded to address the issues there?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I'm pleased to have a chance to speak about this really important issue. As I've said in previous opportunities, we're absolutely committed to Ontario's kids and to finding a pathway to sustainability for Ontario's children's aid societies.

Over the last number of years we've had the opportunity to see funding increases year over year. But in this particular year, we are working with children's aid societies across the province because we have clearly said we will not be able to provide any additional funds this year, other than those funds that they have received in the budget.

With respect to the York CAS in particular, like all CASs across the province, our regional offices are actively meeting with them, working through cash-flow management issues, looking at partnership opportunities, reaching out to the board and the executive director.

Personally, I have had an excellent working opportunity with the board chair of the York CAS and have committed our regional office to continuing to work with them, and that's exactly what—

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

Mr. Frank Klees: The minister received a letter this week from the York Region Police Services Board. In that letter, the York board makes this point: "It is the board's belief that this decision will have a severe impact on the safety and well-being of our vulnerable children and their families." The decision being referred to is the cut in the budget. It goes on to say, "York Regional Police relies heavily on York Region CAS to assist in child-protection-related investigations. This decision may have an adverse effect on the joint response to child welfare and domestic violence cases."

Apart from the 30,000-foot-level response I'm getting from the minister, I would ask her to do this: Address the concerns of the York Regional Police services board and ensure that this York Region Children's Aid Society is properly—

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

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I do think it is imperative that in this House we deal with the facts as they exist. The funding for this CAS is up 34% since 2003-04. The number of child welfare investigations is down 5%. Over the last decade, the funding is up 188%. So this is a CAS that we have worked with closely.

It's also a CAS that is, at this point in time, really examining their ability to form partnerships. As the member knows, families come to work with children's aid societies for a number of reasons. They might have circumstances where they are involved with the police, they are involved with the victim witness assistance program or they are involved with a number of issues. That is exactly the type of partnership that the regional office is working with the York CAS to develop right now. We're absolutely committed to the kids of this province. We need to develop partnerships to make sure that our communities can best serve those children and families—

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

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Minister of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry. Earlier I asked the minister how the McGuinty Liberal government could provide the Buchanan Group of forest companies with tens of millions of dollars of loans, grants and other financial benefits, and yet the more than 2,000 laid-off Buchanan workers across northwestern Ontario could be told, "No money to cover your severance pay or your termination pay."

My question today: At the same time that the workers have been told, "You're out of luck," Liberal candidates in northwestern Ontario, Liberal riding associations, and the Liberal Party have received over $65,000 in financial contributions from Buchanan companies and Buchanan executives. Can the minister explain how that could happen? The Liberal government has money for the companies and the companies have money for the Liberal Party, Liberal candidates, Liberal riding associations—

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

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I appreciate the question. What I fail to understand from the member for Kenora is the lack of understanding that the challenge in terms of the forestry sector certainly across the province, but in northwestern Ontario perhaps in particular with the Buchanan group being such an important force in terms of employment, is that we believe that the best solution in terms of helping the workers, helping those that have been impacted, is to work with the company to try and help the operation potentially get back up and running.

We understand, indeed, that the Terrace Bay Pulp operation is a specific example, and if we are able to help the company get back up and operating, that will have an impact, obviously, on sawmills around the area as well, which are impacted by the operation of Terrace Bay Pulp.

Again, I'm a little puzzled as to why you don't agree we also need to get people back to work. That's the key to our future positive elements in terms of—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: I have a lot of ideas on how to get workers back to work, but there is this issue: There's lots of money from the Buchanan companies and Buchanan executives for Liberal riding associations, Liberal election candidates and the Liberal Party, and there's lots of money flowing from the McGuinty Liberal government to the Buchanan Group of Companies, but the workers who have been laid off—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just would ask the honourable member to be cautious in imputing motive in his questioning.

Mr. Howard Hampton: I'm not imputing motive; I'm simply stating what's on the public record. The fact of the matter is, the workers who are entitled under Ontario law to have their severance pay and termination pay have received nothing. As far as I know, the Liberal Party and Liberal candidates are not entitled under law, yet the Buchanan Group of Companies has lots of money to give to the Liberal Party, Liberal candidates—

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

Hon. Michael Gravelle: The fact is that we are working with all the forestry companies in the province in a variety of ways. We have provided incentive programs that have been of benefit to AbitibiBowater, Domtar, Buchanan and many other companies in the province. Those incentive programs have helped maintain jobs and have helped get companies back up and running. Indeed, again, I presume the member would have supported the efforts we made to get the Terrace Bay pulp operation back up and running in 2006.

We are working equally hard with all the companies, and we are very proud of the incentive programs that have been brought forward by our government over the last three years. The energy rebate program, again, is available to all major pulp and paper operations.

I find it strange and rather unfortunate that the member is taking this approach when, indeed, I would think he would have the same goal in mind, which is to find a way to get people back to work, which is our priority. That's what we're working on all the time.

CRIME PREVENTION

Mr. Mike Colle: To the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services: Minister, this week is Crime Prevention Week. The hard-working men and women at 13 division and 32 division in my constituency, who do a heck of a job in dealing with crime, want to tell you that they also believe in the prevention programs. They think that, yes, we need good police officers on the road, but we also need good crime prevention programs. They want me to ask you: What are some of these crime prevention initiatives that your ministry and our government are doing to help the police in their day-to-day work, where they know they've got to fight crime but also fight the causes of crime?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I want to thank the member for the question, because he and his constituents are absolutely right: Crime prevention is everyone's business, and it's more than just putting police officers on the street. We're very, very proud of