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

May 11, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-May-11 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 11 May 2006 Jeudi 11 mai 2006

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO WORKERS'

MEMORIAL ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LE MONUMENT

COMMÉMORATIF DES TRAVAILLEURS

DE L'ONTARIO

DISCLOSURE OF CRIMES

ON PROPERTY ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LA DIVULGATION

DES CRIMES COMMIS SUR DES BIENS

ONTARIO WORKERS'

MEMORIAL ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LE MONUMENT

COMMÉMORATIF DES TRAVAILLEURS

DE L'ONTARIO

DISCLOSURE OF CRIMES

ON PROPERTY ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LA DIVULGATION

DES CRIMES COMMIS SUR DES BIENS

ONTARIO WORKERS'

MEMORIAL ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LE MONUMENT

COMMÉMORATIF DES TRAVAILLEURS

DE L'ONTARIO

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FAIR TRADE

CONSERVATION

FAIR TRADE

PENSION FUNDS

WOMEN OF DISTINCTION AWARDS

NORTH GRENVILLE DISTRICT

HIGH SCHOOL

SOUTH ASIAN COMMUNITY

CANADIAN MEDICALERT FOUNDATION

ONTARIO BUDGET

VISITORS

CORRECTION OF RECORD

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

MUSEUM MONTH

ANTI-SMOKING INITIATIVES

FOR YOUTH /

INITIATIVES CONTRE LE TABAGISME

POUR LA JEUNESSE

LAND TRUSTS

MUSEUM MONTH

ANTI-SMOKING INITIATIVES

FOR YOUTH

LAND TRUSTS

MUSEUM MONTH

LAND TRUSTS

ANTI-SMOKING INITIATIVES

FOR YOUTH

ORAL QUESTIONS

MEMBER FOR PARKDALE-HIGH PARK

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

MEMBER FOR PARKDALE-HIGH PARK

LONG-TERM CARE

HOSPITAL SERVICES

SOFTWOOD LUMBER

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

COAL-FIRED GENERATING STATIONS

CARDIAC CARE

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

WASTE DIVERSION

RURAL ONTARIO

HEART VALVES

VISITORS

PETITIONS

ORGAN DONATION

BORDER SECURITY

GAMMA FOUNDRIES

GO TRANSIT TUNNEL

GAMMA FOUNDRIES

IDENTITY THEFT

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

LONG-TERM CARE

PROPERTY TAXATION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LA LOCATION

À USAGE D'HABITATION

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO WORKERS'

MEMORIAL ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LE MONUMENT

COMMÉMORATIF DES TRAVAILLEURS

DE L'ONTARIO

Mr. Ramal moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 86,

An Act to establish the Ontario Workers' Memorial / Projet de loi 86, Loi visant à ériger le monument commémoratif en hommage aux

travailleurs de l'Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): The member for London-Fanshawe has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): As always, I like to rise to speak on different bills and comment on different issues that arise and are

debated in this place. Today I'm privileged and honoured to speak about, and debate with my colleagues, a bill which I've introduced for the second time. I had the privilege to introduce this bill

on May 10, 2004. What a coincidence: Today is May 11, 2006, almost two years later.

This bill is not new to this place. It was first introduced by the late Dominic Agostino -- many people in this place remember him -- on May 21, 2003. That's why

the first time I introduced this bill was in memory of my colleague, who died battling a disease he suffered from for a long time. I thought the first time that it was important to continue his

journey as a fighter for the working people of this province. I didn't get the chance to pass that bill in the past, and I strongly hope that this time, this bill will see the light.

My bill is to establish a memorial for the workers who get injured and die in workplaces. It's important to note that almost 49 cities and towns across Ontario

have such memorials to recognize the injured workers who died on the job. Many people have spoken about it in the past, especially since we just passed April 28, the International Day of Mourning

for Workers. Many people, many unions and many workers celebrate that international day to recognize the effort workers put towards building communities, especially in the province of Ontario.

Our government is doing its best to create a safe environment for all the workers across Ontario. They hired more than 200 inspectors in many different locations

to make sure that all workplaces are safe. I was delighted when I heard the member from Hamilton East yesterday sponsor a bill proposed by three schools across the province of Ontario, in Aurora,

Hamilton and Ottawa, to create a safe environment for the students, the kids who wish to work during their break time, to let them know the rules and to ensure that the rules are enforced, for them

to be educated about their rights and not being taken advantage of.

As you know, many of our youngsters who don't know the rules are full of energy. They go full speed and sometimes hurt themselves, and sometimes they die. Our

duty as elected officials in this place is to protect them. That's why I strongly supported that bill yesterday, like other colleagues, because it is very important to create awareness and make

sure our workplaces are safe. That's why our Minister of Labour is working hard in his ministry to make sure, by creating posters and brochures in different languages -- almost 19 languages -- that

Despite all these preventative measures, we still see a lot of people die and get injured in the workplace. The people who work hard to build our cars, the

people who work hard to build our buildings, the people who work hard in the hospitals to keep them functioning, the people who work hard in long-term facilities to look after our elderly in this

province who are subject to many different diseases deserve our recognition.

That's why I recommend -- and hopefully I'll get supported by all the members of the House -- that we build a memorial outside this building. As I mentioned,

there are 49 sites across the province, in different small and large communities. We have one in London and at Adelaide Street, where I had the privilege and honour to go, with the Minister of

Training, Colleges and Universities last month, to celebrate the International Day of Mourning for Workers alongside the London and District Labour Council. But a small community does not attract

as many visitors as this place. Every one of us sees buses and buses, thousands and thousands of people on a daily basis come to visit this place. Queen's Park has become a tourist attraction. It's

very important to have a memorial here to teach our students, our visitors and the many people who come to this place on a daily basis about the importance of the workers who died in the

workplace.

I was listening to the honoured member from Davenport yesterday talking about the memorials that exist right now on the premises of this place, one to recognize

firefighters, one to recognize the police, one to recognize the veterans who died in the line of duty. I think the workers in this province who died in the line of duty are equal to the people who

died defending their country, equal to the people who died battling flames or putting a fire out, equal to the people who protected us from the criminals and thieves in this province. Without them,

we cannot have those buildings. Without them, we cannot make sure that all our streets and roads are clean. Without them, we cannot have bridges and roads and highways. Without them, we cannot have

functioning hospitals. We cannot have nursing homes functioning in the way we want: clean, looking after our elderly in this province. Those are people who work in the line of duty. They deserve

all our attention and respect.

I think it is vitally important to recognize those who give their lives, their skills, their talents to make sure we have a vibrant province. The people who work

hard to continue building this province I think deserve some kind of recognition. The people who give their talent and skills to make this province the engine of the whole country deserve all that

attention, especially many different occasions and ways to celebrate their productivity. Many people do quilts to commemorate those people who die or are injured in the workplace. Many

organizations across the province of Ontario -- we have one in London, done by Mrs. Hickman. She created a community, a place to help people who are injured, whose families are suffering from a lot

of loss.

It's important to all of us to recognize those who give their life in order to continue building our province, to continue building our communities, the people

who give their talents to help us to continue prospering in these communities. Whatever we do is not enough to recognize them. I think a memorial outside this place is a small token of recognition

wheelchair or mentally ill, to make all places accessible to them. We create and open hospitals. We do a lot of things to accommodate the many injured workers in the province, but we don't have a

memorial in this place to recognize their efforts, to recognize their work, to recognize their abilities and their skills and also to remember their lives, because those people who gave their lives

deserve from us all the respect and recognition. That's why I'm looking forward to seeing the support and, hopefully, this bill pass in the future. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I'm pleased to rise today in support of the private member's bill introduced by my colleague from

London-Fanshawe, Bill 86,

An Act to establish the Ontario Workers' Memorial. The purpose of the bill is to require that a memorial be established in or adjacent to the legislative precinct of the

Legislative Assembly here to honour the memory of workers who died on the job.

My colleague from London-Fanshawe has given a good history, which I did not really know about: that it was first introduced by his colleague and friend Dominic

Agostino, who we tragically lost in the last couple of years. It's appropriate that this member is taking this bill forward in his memory.

You have to think that when you meet someone on the street and you ask them what are the most dangerous jobs in the country, you usually get firefighter or

police officer; those may come to mind. But many people don't think of farmers, truckers, trash collectors. According to the department of labour, it's not public safety occupations that pose the

most risk. It's interesting that when you frame that in your mind, you think of police officers, firefighters etc, but there are many occupations -- I know construction workers were mentioned also

-- that just don't usually come first to our minds.

April 28 was mentioned as the nation's day of mourning. I know that in Lindsay in the riding of Haliburton−Victoria−Brock, they had a memorial

service for the National Day of Mourning. Representatives of a growing number of concerned citizens are at these events to reflect on the lives and the communities affected by occupational

injuries, illnesses and death.

According to the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, in 2005 there were 562 total reported worker fatality claims and 357,555 total reported claims for

injuries and occupational disease. We know that this is just the tip of the iceberg, as researchers point to extensive underreporting of occupational injuries, diseases and death. Here in Ontario,

thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, die annually from cancer and other diseases caused by workplace exposures years, even decades, later. Worldwide statistics are equally alarming and are on the

rise, with more than two million worker deaths, 1.7 million of which were victims of an occupational disease, 160 million new cases of work-related illness, and 268 million non-fatal injuries.

Technology innovations, health and safety training and education have all significantly reduced workplace fatalities over the years here in Canada. Workplace

fatalities were commonplace way back in my grandparents' day. So I'm happy to see that we're being more preventive and taking more precautions in each of the industries that have been listed. We

need to move forward on that. In 2005 in Ontario alone, 80 workers lost their lives on the job.

Some occupations are high-risk and workers entering them recognize the risk involved. Certainly, when I became a nurse, which was my previous profession before I

turned to politics, I never looked upon it as a high-risk profession, but statistically it is. It's incredible, and it's on the rise. In 2004, for example, I think over 6,000 health service

professionals were injured or killed on the job. You're subject to many things that people don't normally think about, like aggressive patients; you mentioned diseases, and the SARS outbreak was

the most recent where a nurse died; also needle sticks, lifting. It's incredible when you think that those are just some of the things that are encountered in nursing.

Farming is another profession very prominent in my riding. A lot of people don't think of it as high-risk, but it's a very high-risk business: exposure to

pesticides; power takeoffs with large machinery, where clothing gets tangled. People get caught up in bailers; they drive large machinery on the roads. They even have an increase of skin cancer

because they're outside so much. That's just not thought of most commonly. Farm children certainly are at risk too, where you have a lot of big machinery, big tires, and you can't see the children

who are close by. I know in the last two weeks we lost one of our close family friends in a farming accident. He was a gentleman who had been around farms and machinery all his life. Things happen;

it's just the nature of the job and what they're exposed to. I think those things need to be brought forward. There's unpredictable livestock. It's incredible. You just don't know what's going to

happen around the corner.

There's a lot more we can do in training and occupational safety so we can prevent these statistics from rising. I was happy to see that there's a young worker

awareness program, and the goal there is to give the health and safety awareness you need to protect yourself and your fellow workers. These types of programs are exposing our young children to how

to be more careful in the workplace. It's incredible to say that 42 young Ontario workers are injured, made ill or killed on the job every day. This site, Youngworker.ca, contains health and safety

information for young workers. Young workers are considered part-time or full-time and between 15 and 24 years of age. It's done by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.

Those are the types of programs that I think we need to encourage out there and to also educate as much as possible. I worked as a nurse. I know that training

for occupational health and safety has increased greatly. I know that other professions have done the same.

The member from London-Fanshawe has brought forward a very worthwhile bill. He underlined the importance of workers to the building of our communities and our

future. As members of the Legislature, we should all support his initiative to build a memorial that will be close by to the Legislature, as has been done for firefighters and, most recently, the

veterans out there.

I encourage support of this bill and look forward to other debate in the Legislature this morning on this.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): First up, I want to say, as we did the last time, that New Democrats will be supporting this bill. We

think it's high time that in this Legislature we recognize injured workers, diseased workers and workers who are deceased as a result of their employment. There's no better way of being able to

demonstrate that, for us as legislators, than providing a memorial here at the site of the Parliament of Ontario where workers would be able to gather every year, as they do everywhere else across

this province, on April 28 to commemorate injured workers, diseased workers and, unfortunately, far too many workers who are deceased as a result of their employment.

I want to take this to a little bit of a different take because it gives me an opportunity to talk about the rules that exist in this province in regard to

health and safety and about workers' compensation.

There's no better memorial, in my mind, for injured workers or diseased workers than to have better legislation. I understand what the member's trying to do.

It's very symbolic, and I appreciate and support what he's trying to do, but I think he'll agree with me that what we really need are rules and laws in this province that are tougher on the issues

of health and safety and that properly deal with workers' injuries, both from the perspective of trying to prevent them by way of better health and safety legislation, a better workers'

compensation system that employers understand is a deterrent. A deterrent from having injuries is to charge WSIB assessments, and if the WSIB assessments are too high, then employers will take

health and safety much more seriously.

I want to talk about a couple of cases that I've dealt with over the years. First of all, I come out of the mining industry. I worked in the mining industry for

a number of years, starting back in 1975 when I left the armed forces. It has been my observation, as a worker and eventually as a representative of the Steelworkers' locals that I was a member of,

that no employer really has been taking the position of embracing health and safety and safer workplaces unless they've been dragged kicking and screaming, as my good friend Moses Sheppard used to

say. Nobody jumps out of the boardrooms of Bay Street, Montreal, Vancouver or wherever it might be, saying, "We want to do all these wonderful things for workers when it comes to a safer

workplace," because at the end of the day those things cost money.

I'm going to acknowledge that there has been a change of attitude in the boardrooms across Canada and Ontario over the years that I can observe. I look back to

when I first started mining in 1974-75. Some of the conditions we worked in, quite frankly, were kind of atrocious. In some cases, especially the older outfits, conditions basically resembled the

1930s, 1940s and 1950s, just basic things such as washrooms underground. There was no place for men to go to the washroom on an eight-hour shift working underground. It was basically where you

could find a spot. There was nowhere to wash your hands -- just the very basics. The health aspect of being able to provide sanitation was something that was not even provided in many of the

workplaces across this province.

In the lumber camps it was much the same story in regard to those who worked in the forest industry. It wasn't until unions, quite frankly -- the Steelworkers in

my case, IWA in others, and the Communication, Energy and Paperworkers Union, or CPU, as it used to be called at the time. I remember, back in 1975-76, meeting at labour council meetings in the

city of Timmins where union members were coming around the table saying, "We've got to get our employers to take seriously even the most basic things, such as the ability to have a place where you

can have your lunch, so you can wash your hands, take the dirt off your hands and eat your sandwich without fear of contaminating yourself with whatever you've been working with during the

day."

I remember going into bargaining at the time with one particular employer, because I used to bargain on behalf of the Steelworkers, where there was a huge

resistance on the part of the employer to allowing even the most basic things such as lunchrooms to be put in place underground. It wasn't until the union made it a condition of the contract that

in fact the employer relented and put in place what needed to be put in place as far as basic lunchrooms. Now, I don't think that would happen in today's workplace, because we've had changes to the

health and safety legislation where that is mandated, and employers today take their responsibility very seriously. But go back 30 years, back to 1975-76, and that was not the case. My point is

that it was workers -- it wasn't this Legislature -- who, through their unions, fought and got the most basic things inside the workplace, such as a lunchroom.

I also look at the issue of accidents in the workplace. It was very common, when I worked in the mining industry in the late 1970s and early 1980s, to hear of

injury and see injury on a weekly basis -- sometimes on a daily basis. I worked in a number of different mines in what they used to call the Porcupine camp. You would hear about or see accidents on

a very regular basis. Unfortunately, death was something that was far too common as far as accidents within the forestry and mining industries back in the late 1970s, when I was in the industry,

and the early 1980s.

Again, it wasn't this Legislature that decided to do something about it; it was workers. I think of workers like Omer Séguin, people like Moses Sheppard,

Roger Ladouceur, Denis Carrière and a number of other people I worked with who made health and safety -- Roger Toal was always a very big proponent of health and safety in one of the

workplaces I was at, where we used to fight, day in and day out, with the employer and with the Legislature of Ontario in order to get the rules and the laws that we needed to make our workplace

safer. Again, the Occupational Health and Safety Act didn't come out of nowhere. It was because of the Steelworkers in Elliot Lake in the uranium industry who said, "We need to have an Occupational

Health and Safety Act that forces the employers to take the issue of health and safety seriously." It was only after the Steelworkers' humongous battle -- and it was people like Omer Séguin in

Elliot Lake; I worked with him later when he was a staff rep out of Sudbury -- but Omer and a whole bunch of other people who worked in Elliot Lake and worked with Elie Martel, the New Democratic

critic for labour, that they forced the then Conservative government to adopt health and safety legislation in this province. We can tap ourselves on the back as legislators and say, "Oh, what a

wonderful job we've done. Look at the wonderful Occupational Health and Safety Act." I remind people: It was workers who forced the provincial government to get this, and in this case in particular

it was the Steelworkers out of Elliot Lake.

I look at the issue of workers' compensation. This is something we don't hear a lot about these days, I think for a very simple reason: The rules, as changed

under the Conservative government of Mike Harris, make it virtually impossible for somebody to deal with a claim successfully if the claim has not been filed within a six-month period. I just want

to make this one point: I got into politics as a result of my involvement in the union movement and specifically under workers' compensation. I did industrial diseases. I investigated and filed

claims on behalf of the widows and families of miners who died as a result of working in the mining industry. Far too often, as we well know, a person doesn't know, until the onset of their disease

-- between the first contamination of whatever it is that affects the industrial disease and the onset of symptoms and eventually death in some cases -- it doesn't happen until a latency of 10, 15

or 20 years. Under the workers' compensation rules of today, which were established by Mike Harris, you have to report an injury or incident within a certain period of time, and if you don't, you

don't have the ability to file and the Workers' Compensation Board will not deal with you because they'll say that you didn't report it; too bad, so sad.

I sat across the table from many widows, from Timmins to Kirkland Lake, as I did their family histories in order to determine the conditions of the health of

their husband who died and the circumstance that led to that death. Then we compared that to all of his brothers to see, if you had a group of miners and you compared them to miners' brothers who

were not in the mining industry, what the difference was. We found that, on average, the mining brothers died, I think it was, about 11 and a half years faster than the non-mining brothers.

Again, my point is this: We changed the Workers' Compensation Act in this province as a result of workers; in this case myself and people like Omer Séguin,

Moses Sheppard and Ann Maftarak, who has passed away, a volunteer for the widows. We worked hard at identifying what the causes of the industrial disease, in this case lung cancer, were. We worked

hard at putting together the case that eventually we brought before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal, and we lobbied with the New Democrats, at that time in opposition, to get the then

David Peterson government to make the changes to the workers' compensation system so we could make compensation to those widows and families who lost their loved ones at very early ages. A lot of

these men died in their 40s and early 50s as a result of working in the worst years of the gold mining industry, what we used to called the "dustiest years," back in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s

and even into the 1970s.

I just say to members of this Assembly, it is fitting that we go forward with putting in place a monument by which we're able to remember the injured workers of

this province, the workers that have been injured as a result of their employment, and those that unfortunately have died. No more fitting memorial can be done than for us to continue the struggle

of making sure that we have rules in this province that provide for workers to be fairly dealt with when it comes to the issue of both accident and disease within the workplace.

I hearken back to something that was done away with under the Harris government that I think was a tragedy, and that was the Industrial Disease Standards Panel.

There was, as a result of the work we had done in the Steelworkers -- we had lobbied the David Peterson government through the NDP, Elie Martel and at the time Bob Rae -- I think he's doing

something else these days. Anyway, we successfully lobbied to create what was called the IDSP as a result of the accord from 1985 to 1987. The Industrial Disease Standards Panel was charged with

looking at those cases of creating the criteria necessary to recognize, first of all, is a disease related to the workplace, and if so, what should be the criteria for compensation? Our thinking

within the Steelworkers is that if we're able to effectively compensate people that are diseased as a result of their work experience, that is not only fair for them but it'll create pressure on

the employer to clean up the workplace. Our ultimate goal is not to have one diseased worker and not to have one injured worker in the province. It's a hard one to get to, but certainly we need to

strive towards that.

My point is that that was done away with under the Harris government. I always thought that was one of the most short-sighted things they had done. It was one of

the first things they did when coming to government. I look at this government and say it's something that we should revisit as bringing back, because there are still problems within the workplace.

We take a look at esophageal cancers that are created within the workplace. We take a look at some of the professions, such as firefighters who are in harm's way when walking into a burning

building with a toxic chemical burning in the building. We look at smelter workers, we look at refinery workers, we look at workers in the construction industry. There are many examples of people

that are still being diseased. We need to get to the bottom of it in order to prevent those types of diseases from occurring as a result of somebody's workplace.

I also just want to end on this note with something I was hoping I'd have a bit more time to get into, and that's the workers' compensation rules. We all of us

have done a lot of workers' compensation work on behalf of the constituents in our ridings. One thing that always astounds me is that -- we just, for example, yesterday got word that we won a

particular appeal that we had in regards to a particular individual with white hand, and white hand is vibration-induced. My point is that this particular claim is one that's been ongoing for the

better part of around 15 years and came to my office about four or five years ago.

It is amazing the amount of work that we have to do in order to be able to finally win a claim on behalf of a worker who's entitled to something as a result of

their exposure to the workplace. This particular claim was rejected categorically by the Workers' Compensation Board. We went through all the hoops, loops and jumps that they put in front of us to

finally today them basically saying, "Well, given that there's" -- they're going to give this worker the benefit of the doubt because we presented the evidence in such a way that they had to come

to a positive conclusion. My point is, why should workers, members of the Assembly with their staff or legal clinics have to go through five, six, seven and sometimes 10 years of adjudication with

the Workers' Compensation Board to give an injured worker what the heck he or she should have been entitled to the in the first place?

I've got another claim that I won for a woman. She lost her husband at age 47. He was an Italian immigrant. They said they wouldn't compensate him for his lung

cancer because he had come to work in Ontario at age 31; the criterion was you had to have started at age 30. Luckily for me, we were able to find a chest X-ray to prove that when he emigrated from

Italy he had a clean chest X-ray, the point being it took six or seven years.

We finally won at the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal -- a very long story; it took five or six years -- and then they awarded us the claim without

quantum, meaning no money. I had to go back to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal for another two years to get them to award the money. Finally, they compensated the widow. But why should

this woman who lost her husband to cancer as a result of his working underground have to go through what eventually took about six years to resolve, let alone whatever happened before she came to

my office? Because I'm sure she was dealing with others before she came to my office.

My point is that workers far too often have to go through extraordinary struggles in order to get the most basic of things recognized when it comes to their

entitlement under the workers' compensation laws or whatever laws are applicable to them. I support the member in what he's doing with the monument, but I challenge members that there is no better

tribute, no better memorial to a worker, than to have rules that give them justice while they are still here and able to benefit from whatever those rights would be.

So I commend the member for bringing this bill forward, but let's resolve to challenge ourselves in order to do what is right and make life a little bit easier

for workers in this province when it comes to how they get compensated because of injury or disease, and make sure that our workplaces are safe so that we prevent workers from being injured or

diseased in the workplace.

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): Speaker, I wish I had 20 minutes. I have shared times, so I'm only going to get a few minutes.

I want to do a couple of things first, before I get into the body of my speech. I want to accept the challenge from the member for Timmins-James Bay. I think

he's absolutely bang on. We want to make our workplaces as safe as we possibly can, to avoid having to use a monument. But, having said that, I want to accept his challenge, his personal

perspective, his personal experience, and the history he provided to us, the perspective that he has provided. I think it's a valuable exercise, and it was heard. I want to make sure he understands

that. I think every successive government has made an effort to make our working Ontarians as safe as possible.

The member for Haliburton-Victoria-Brock provided us with her perspective in terms of the various ways in which we can protect ourselves as well, and within her

own profession of nursing, because I did mention and signal to her that it's actually on the rise, and unfortunately, we need to correct that as well. So we should be accepting those challenges

when we talk about this particular bill.

I also want to make one point that I harp on all the time, and that is that this is private members' time and business. I want to welcome all of our guests to

the House and explain to them that you will hear very little partisan discussion, because it's private members' time, where we remove the shackles of our parties and talk about each individual bill

and its merit -- not a government-sponsored bill, but one where private members present from all sides have an opportunity to speak to us. I only have a few minutes, so I'm going to try to be

specific, but welcome, and watch and learn about how the private members speak to each other during this particular time versus question period, where you can actually get turned off.

Quite frankly, I'm very proud of this moment and this time, because we have passed private members' bills. We do pass them from time to time, and the ones that

we pass speak to what Ontarians want to speak about. That's the one point. I'm going to encourage us all to use these opportunities to do that.

I've spoken in the past about bills on this type of thing. I was, behind the scenes, very, very supportive of the police memorial that was passed by the previous

government. I was somewhat instrumental in passing the Firefighters' Memorial Day Act. That was a private member's bill that was mine. We passed it, memorializing our firefighters who have lost

their lives in the line of duty. So, quite frankly, I'm very supportive of this bill.

I want to thank the member for London-Fanshawe for bringing forward to us an opportunity to, one more time, speak to safety. No one has a monopoly on wanting to

keep our workers safe, so I would suggest to you very clearly that this is an opportune time for us, as private members, to speak to the very issue that is in front of us today, and that is to

memorialize those who have been injured or killed, unfortunately, on the job.

The most dangerous job on the planet -- they did a show, and now it's actually a regular show -- is that of an Alaskan crab fisherman; per capita, more people

die and are injured than in any other job on the planet. Those are workers. Those are people who make good money, but they risk their lives. And what does that say? They've got memorials in Alaska

for the lost fishermen, and that's what we are talking about today.

In Ontario, do we have an opportunity to honour those families? Absolutely. I'm very supportive. On the National Day of Mourning in April, I rushed home from an

event in London to be there on time at Fordview Park to pay my respects to those people who have lost their lives and been injured in my riding and ridings across the province. It is the right

thing to do. Does it answer what the member from Timmins-James Bay spoke of specifically? No, it doesn't. But what it does is that it elevates us to continue the debate and the challenges he's laid

out for us to improve the circumstances for all workers. I support that as well. We will be discussing those things in all our caucuses: Are there things we can do in legislation to improve the

life and the safety of our workers in the province of Ontario?

I've got a page full of all of the statistics. I'm not going to go through them, because I don't have enough time, but I will say that yesterday we debated Bill

95, the Employment Statute Law Amendment Act by the member from Hamilton East, who took the place of the member who brought this private member's bill forward, my friend Dominic Agostino. The late

Dominic Agostino was well known in this province as an advocate for the workers, and to him, I want to dedicate this discussion, when we do decide to put this memorial up, and I want to dedicate it

at least to the memory of Dominic as well. He saw that. He fought tirelessly for them.

I want to make one last point in terms of what we are trying to accomplish. Ontario does have the safest record for safety on the job in all of Canada. We need

to do more. I think we should do that. Let's use this as the springpoint where we can improve worker safety completely.

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): It's my pleasure to join in the debate this morning in private members' business to debate Bill 86, which

is

An Act to establish the Ontario Workers' Memorial. It's been put forward by the member for London-Fanshawe. This bill would establish an Ontario Workers' Memorial either here at Queen's Park or

somewhere nearby Queen's Park.

The

preamble of the bill really says it all. It's about recognition of Ontario's workers that have given their life on the job: "Ontario's workers are the

lifeblood of this province's economy. Their talents and skills have made Ontario the most important economy in this country, thus contributing to Canada's becoming one of the best performing

economies in the world. Our day-to-day lives are touched by Ontario's workers, whether it be by the cars we drive, the food we consume, the buildings that house us or the streets and roads that

pave our province's way to success. Unfortunately, many of this province's workers have been lost to accidents while on the job. Ontario has become strong based largely on their efforts and

therefore we should recognize those whose lives were lost in making this province great. The Legislative Assembly believes that it would be appropriate to establish a memorial to honour those

workers who have made the ultimate sacrifice."

That's really what this bill is about, and I support the construction of the memorial as proposed in the act. I note, as was noted by the member for

London-Fanshawe, that there are other memorials, most erected in the last couple of years and some in the process of being built right now. In particular there is the Ontario Police Memorial; that

was dedicated in 2000. It was put forward by the past government. In fact, just last week they had the dedication ceremony, on Sunday, May 7. I'm sad to say that the one name that was added to that

memorial this year came from the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, and that was Andrew Potts, who was killed while working last summer. He and his partner, Matt Hanes, were going to a call in the

middle of the night on Highway 169 between Gravenhurst and Bala; they hit a moose on that highway and, tragically, Andrew lost his life. He was recognized and his name is now on the police

memorial. And of course just this past week saw another police officer, John Atkinson of Windsor, killed. His will hopefully be the only name that will be added to that in next year's ceremony here

at Queen's Park.

We also have the firefighters' memorial. That was committed to in 2002, and I believe it opened in 2005. It is to recognize firefighters who lost their lives and

died in the line of duty. It's also located right here at Queen's Park.

And just being built now right in front of Queen's Park, we also have the new veterans' memorial, which was once again committed to in 2002. It takes a while for

these things to happen. It's just in the process. The area is barricaded off. It's being built right now, a very fitting memorial to honour our veterans.

Actually, this past weekend in Parry Sound-Muskoka, I also had the pleasure of participating with the local Bracebridge Legion for their annual Flag Day

ceremony. On Sunday, a number of veterans and Legion members went out to the Bracebridge memorial cemetery where a service was held, and then, after that ceremony, a banquet was held to remember

those who have given their lives in wars, fighting for the freedom of Canada. So I was very pleased to attend that ceremony.

This memorial that's proposed is for workers. I know Frank Klees had wanted to speak today, and I'm sure he probably would have mentioned the Safe Communities

Foundation. Paul Kells, the father of Sean Kells, who was killed in 1994, has gone on to create the Safe Communities Foundation, to work towards improving safety in the workplace.

I'd just like to tell you a little bit about Safe Communities Foundation. It's a national, not-for-profit, charitable organization dedicated to making Canada

the safest country in the world to live, work and play. The Safe Communities network currently includes 48 safe community coalitions, covering approximately 23% of the total Canadian population.

The goal of the the foundation and all participating safe communities in Canada is to eliminate injuries while promoting a culture of safety through the implementation of programs and education.

That's been the result of the hard work of Mr. Paul Kells, and I'm sure he was motivated because of the tragic loss of his son, Sean, who was killed on the job in 1994.

Certainly I think our efforts have to be geared towards doing absolutely everything we can to prevent injury, and to prevent death especially, in the

workplace. The stats show that in 2005 there were some 300,000 workplace injuries and over 80 people were killed on the job in Ontario. That's from the WSIB. I think that's shocking. I understand

we have the best record, but still it's not good enough and we need to work towards improving it. So I commend Mr. Kells for the work that he's doing with the Safe Communities Foundation.

The member from Haliburton-Victoria-Brock talked about farming being a dangerous activity. I would totally agree with her on that. It's a line of work that

involves heavy machinery and not necessarily controlled situations. She specifically mentioned power takeoffs. I've had my own brush with power takeoffs, so I can attest to the fact that you have

to be awfully careful around them. We have many other industries, like forestry and mining, which naturally have a high element of risk, so we have to do everything possible to make the workplace

as safe as possible.

I support the introduction of this bill and the new monument that's proposed here at Queen's Park. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): Permit me to first congratulate the member from London-Fanshawe for introducing Bill 86,

An Act to establish

the Ontario Workers' Memorial.

This week indeed is very auspicious, because we had some students come in here from three different schools. That was Bill 95. It was introduced by Ms.

Horwath. Essentially, the bill pointed to improving young workers' health and safety and to ensure that they understand clearly the hazards they will face on the job once they begin to work.

I'm reminded of a story of one of our great union leaders, Mr. Antonio Dionisio, who in 1954 was digging a trench for the Toronto subway extension. The walls

fell in. He escaped with his life, but many of his crew were injured.

I was working on Vancouver Island with the loggers, who are famous on that island, and for the first time in my life I saw a severed hand. When you see the

blood and the gore first-hand, you know that safety must be a priority.

The statistics are clear. In 2004, for which we have statistics, 277,422 people were injured on job. Out of those, 49,000 were young people who were on the job

pretty well for the first time. Seven of those 49,000 died. Between 1999 and 2004, we had 1,697 people dying on the job. Obviously, these kinds of statistics need revision. These kinds of

statistics do not speak well of our record, yet our record is probably one of the best in the industrialized world. But for Ontarians and for us today, this is simply not acceptable.

Their deaths remind me of the monuments that some members have spoken of before, and I mentioned them yesterday. Over here, just off to the east, we have the

memorial to the police personnel who gave their lives in the line of duty. When you see a criminal point their gun and shoot point-blank at police officers, these kinds of statistics, these kinds

of accidents, simply cannot be avoided -- they are not really accidents.

Just over here to the south, on the corner of University and Queen's Park, at College Street, we have another memorial. That memorial is to the firefighters.

When you see a firefighter, you understand that he or she will give their life to save someone else; when you see and hear a crying baby in a fire-engulfed building or a bigger edifice, you know

that the fire personnel will give their lives to save the kids. Those are not accidents, no matter how careful you are.

Just to the south of us here, as we speak, we're building a monument to the veterans who gave their lives in the great wars, and also to those who just lost

their lives, in fact, in Afghanistan, in Kandahar. They were blown up by a roadside bomb. That incident and the loss of those lives cannot really be called an accident. They gave their lives in

service to our country, and in service to freedom and democracy.

Today, we're specifically talking about workers. We know that if we can -- with this Bill 95 that the member from London-Fanshawe introduced -- simply say yes,

through this monument, through our participation here today and through the participation of all the workers, if we can save one accident, if we can save just one life, then we can say today that

we have done our job.

To all Ontarians, especially to those who are today working in their specific construction industry or wherever they may be working, we simply say, "Be

careful, know your rights and try to improve working conditions." If they have no accidents, we have done a better job, because fewer accidents mean better working conditions, and better working

conditions mean a better Ontario in the end.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland): One of the opening remarks we always make is that it's great to speak to a new piece of legislation or a new

bill. Unfortunately, I have a hard time saying that, although I must say from the outset, this bill introduced by my good friend and seatmate from London-Fanshawe is truly one of those things that

makes us reflect on some of the folks who lost their lives, and we don't want to forget that. So a monument will certainly be appropriate. From the outset, I must say that I'm fully supportive of

this and I'm sure every member in the House is.

As I mentioned, it's kind of hard that we are here debating a bill to establish a memorial for people who lose their lives. People should not lose their lives

because they get up in the morning, or in the evening, whatever shift they work, and go to work and don't come home. That should not happen. As legislators, as previous speakers have mentioned,

maybe we need to work hard so those things don't happen.

Just in the last couple of weeks we recognized the federal labour council's National Day of Mourning. I had the opportunity, as I have for the past seven or

eight years, both as a municipal politician and now here in the province, to celebrate with folks from the Northumberland federation of labour the day of mourning in Cobourg.

I remember when we first started that. We did it in front of the county building in Cobourg, just on the sidewalk. These folks worked so hard, we now have a

memorial in Cobourg to honour the folks who lost their lives in their workplace. But it's not just a memorial, it's a park, right on the northern shore of Lake Ontario. It's a beautiful setting, I

guess the best possible setting where one could celebrate those moments.

But wouldn't it be great -- you know, I hear London has one; I'm sure other communities have one. We have one in Cobourg for the whole county of

Northumberland. But wouldn't it be great if we had a monument somewhere around these buildings here at Queen's Park where we could honour all the folks who lost their lives right across the

province.

It's not new, the saying "An accident is only a word until it happens." Many times we say that in passing, without a lot of feeling or a lot of meaning behind

it. But if we stop and think for a minute -- I had the opportunity to visit some families that lost their loved ones through the workforce. A couple of years ago, a policeman in Cobourg lost his

life. It was a real challenge. We cannot imagine -- I know we say we understand their feelings and we understand how they feel. I think we're lying when we say that, because unless you experience

it -- it must be difficult. There's no warning. It's not from a deadly disease that we can't cure. It's not from something that's expected. These people got up in the morning, left their homes,

left their families and went to work, and they didn't come back. If that were ever to happen to any members of my family, I have no idea how I would handle it.

The member for London-Fanshawe is trying to heighten that awareness today. The more we're reminded of these accidents, I really believe we can prevent them. As

a society, we can prevent workplace accidents and some that end up in people losing their lives.

Having a memorial, yes, remembers those people who lost their lives, but I think it will also heighten our awareness as Ontarians, as legislators, everybody,

to try to work towards the prevention of that word "accident."

It's great to debate this, and I now look forward to a vote and to passing this bill along.

The Acting Speaker: The member for London-Fanshawe has two minutes to reply.

Mr. Ramal: First, I want to thank the members for Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, Timmins-James Bay, Brant, Parry Sound-Muskoka, Davenport and

Northumberland for speaking in support of the bill.

Every speaker brought different perspectives to this debate, but all of them together put a lot of emphasis on creating safety in the workplace. Safety in the

workplace is the most important thing, to prohibit accidents from happening.

Despite all the mechanisms, laws and procedures we put in the workplace, accidents will happen sometimes. I know all governments over the years have worked

very hard to establish and make procedural mechanisms to protect workers in the workplace, creating safety for all the people who decide to go to work, so they can come back home to their families

and enjoy their lives. But despite what we do, accidents happen, people are injured and people die.

That's why I'm asking this House and all the members from all the different parties to support a recognition of the people who died and to support this bill to

establish a memorial outside this House, a monument to recognize the people who work hard for us and give their talents, skills, ability and youth to keep our province alive and vibrant. This bill

is only a recognition, a small token for the people who died.

I want to echo the member from Brant, who talked about the late Dominic Agostino, a fighter for workers across the province of Ontario, that this bill be a

memory of his departure from this place. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker: That concludes our debate on ballot item number 35.

DISCLOSURE OF CRIMES

ON PROPERTY ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LA DIVULGATION

DES CRIMES COMMIS SUR DES BIENS

Mr. Sergio moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 40,

An Act respecting the disclosure of information about crimes to purchasers of land and to tenants / Projet de loi 40,

Loi sur la divulgation de

renseignements sur les crimes commis aux acheteurs de biens-fonds et aux locataires.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): The member for York West has 10 minutes for his presentation this morning.

Mr. Mario Sergio (York West): Before I begin, let me introduce in the members' gallery Detective Sergeant Jim Qualtrough from the Toronto drug

squad and Mr. Anthony Samotus from the Toronto Real Estate Board, accompanied by my EA, Mercedes Zanon as well.

I'd like to acknowledge my colleague from Cambridge, Gerry Martiniuk, who not too long ago introduced to this House for the first time a similar bill on grow

ops. I would like to say thank you for bringing this matter forward, about which I know he shares some considerable concern.

The purpose of this bill is to provide protection and safety for the people of Ontario in an area of concern that is becoming more widespread as we speak. Bill

40 provides that a vendor in an agreement of purchase and sale and a landlord in a tenant agreement must disclose to the purchaser or tenant whether the property that is the subject of the

agreement has been used to commit a crime during the time the vendor or landlord had a legal interest in the property. Let me say at the outset that the bill as it is does not answer all the

questions or cover every detail, but it must be seen as the beginning of a debate with the aim of seeking wider input, recognizing that there is a real problem that must be addressed; that we send

this forward to go into our community to hear what groups and individuals have to say and let the appropriate committee bring back to the House a final paper that provides fairness, peace of mind

and effective consumer protection.

Some 50 or 100 years ago, perhaps in a more vintage Victorian era, we had no grow op problems. People were dying in their homes, and yes, that was normal,

acceptable. Even today it is normal and acceptable for people to die in their own homes -- the 21st century is here -- as a right. We now have hospices and long-term-care homes, where many of our

senior people find final rest during their journey.

Today we have grow ops in residential homes and horrific murders and other vicious activities that take place as well. As a result of these actions, today too

many consumers are left traumatized and in despair. I think it's quite appropriate, then, that an agreement to purchase and sell or a lease or rental agreement contain a disclosure of such an

activity having taken place.

In 2005, Toronto police raided some 347 grow op houses. Scarborough's 42 Division has begun to publish exact street addresses of grow ops on their own website.

Homeowners are required to disclose urea formaldehyde home insulation, even though this type of insulation has not been found to be hazardous. As a matter of fact, I believe it is now a standard

clause in all offers to purchase. In my own 31 Division, there were 19 cases in 2003, 39 in 2004 and 67 in 2005; in 42 Division, 43 cases in 2003, up to 123 in 2005, equalling some 42,000

plants.

I have just received some fresh statistical information from our own Ontario Provincial Police drug enforcement

section which is quite staggering, and I think

we should pay serious attention to that: total investigations, 12,000; search warrants executed, 3,873; criminal charges, 30,400; charged persons, 7,700; marijuana grow ops eliminated, 2,486;

marijuana plants destroyed, one million; weapons seized, 2,379.

What does all this mean to a young family with a couple of kids who just scrounged to find the down payment to purchase their first home? What will be their

reaction when the neighbours tell them that this house was busted or that so-and-so was murdered? They may not see ghosts, but the nightmare begins. It is a traumatic and mental anguish that is

compounded when forced to deal with an exorbitant cleanup bill.

The health risks, trauma and financial burdens associated with these issues beg the attention and resolve of this House.

Health risks: Mould can be removed, but some spore species can be present for up to 50 years. Mould spores cause debilitating illnesses. A pregnant woman, a

child or a frail elderly, someone with a weak immune system, chemical sensitivities or respiratory problems are at the greatest risk of adverse effects. An artificial atmosphere is fertile ground

for airborne bacteria. Inhaled bacteria spores ingested or absorbed through the skin can cause potential respiratory disease. New occupants -- families -- will likely become ill in a few months or

even in a few weeks. Many studies confirm that mould exposure is a leading cause of childhood asthma. Repeated exposure will see the onset of allergies that could become lifelong.

Financial costs: You cannot cover up a mouldy wall without endangering the lives of renters or buyers. Returning a house to a habitable condition will cost

absolutely thousands and thousands of dollars -- it is being said some $30,000 to $40,000 for a normal house. To run tests and spore removal is costly and never guaranteed as a total remedy.

This is not a case of "What you don't know is not going to hurt." We must not only educate an unwary public, but we must take responsible action and make

disclosure mandatory. I think it's incumbent upon us to send a very strong message to villains and criminals, and property owners and landlords, that we intend to protect consumers. It is time to

give consumers protection and peace of mind.

The real estate profession is a very noble profession. Agents are professionals, and they conduct themselves as such. They are very happy when they finalize a

sale and end up with a very happy client. As a matter of fact, I'm thankful I was provided with a letter from the Toronto Real Estate Board supporting this, but showing concerns with a lot of the

issues. They would like to see this bill work in our communities, and they would be looking forward to having their input on the matter. As well, I have a fax from one of the city councillors who

has shown some concern. He deals with a number of grow ops in his constituency as well. There are several calls that I have received in support of this particular bill.

My time is running very quickly and I have quite a bit to say, but let me say to the members of the House today that this is not an issue related to a

particular constituency or a particular riding but one that affects everybody in our province. I would indulge the members of this House and say that I would like to see the House send out to those

people who intend to make a quick buck at the expense of vulnerable Ontarians a very strong, unequivocal message to owners and landlords, to those criminal minds, that there is a price to be paid.

But the highest price will be paid by some innocent Ontarians.

I hope I can have the support of this House. I hope that indeed it will come back soon, and then we can truly say that, yes, we have done something to protect

the people of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I rise to speak to Bill 40,

An Act respecting the disclosure of information about crimes to purchasers of land

and to tenants. I want to thank the member from York West for introducing this bill.

Any time that we can talk about issues that deal with protecting public confidence in our economy and our society, it's a good thing, although, as I read this

bill, I started having some concerns that the bill does a lot of things that have very little to do with consumer protection. When we have a property that has had a grow operation in it, the fact

that it may have the climate that was attached to that operation, which of course would be a criminal activity covered by this bill -- we don't see the damage that it does in the structure. So I

think it's appropriate to find a way to make sure that's disclosed when someone else purchases the property. But when you look at other crimes, I find it very, very hard to accept that a landlord

or an owner of a property could be held liable for anything that may have occurred in that building during the time that they have owned the building.

I would suggest that, as you read the bill, it's not only the unit; it is the total building that the landlord must disclose, first of all, to any tenant. If

there has been a criminal activity in that building in the last 25 years that the landlord has owned that, he must disclose it to every tenant coming in.

First of all, I wonder how they would keep track of that. Second, I wonder what significance what has happened in the building other than that which may be

structurally applicable -- what interest that would be to a tenant 20 years after the fact. The disclosure of that, to me, does not seem to be anything that deals with the quality of the structure

of the accommodations. So I see absolutely no benefit to putting that in there for consumer protection.

There are certain crimes, I'm sure, that, their having been committed in a building, someone may not want to buy that building because that crime was committed

there, even though it has no material effect on the building. Having said that, I'm not sure the onus should be put upon the owner of the property to say, "I will tell you why you shouldn't want to

buy my property because of something that happened here through no fault of my own, but this happened in our neighbourhood or this happened in this house."

In fact, if we're going to use that analogy, I expect it's fair to say that we should likely broaden it to say everything that's happened in this community,

because I think you would find, if you're looking at criminal activity as it relates to whether a person wants to buy or rent accommodation, the criminal activity that goes on in the neighbourhood

will likely have a greater impact on the decision as to whether they want to move into that area than what actually happened in that individual unit. Again, I don't think this is an issue where the

onus should be on property owners to divulge or gather this information and make it available to each one who goes in. From that aspect, I think the majority of the bill is somewhat misplaced.

As I said when I started, it's so important that we do all we can, at least in discussion, to protect consumers from being taken, shall we say, on a contract,

that what they end up with is not what they wanted. Of course, this is private members' business so it's not a party issue, but it's interesting that the member who introduced it is a member of the

present government.

The minister responsible for the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, which is the act that this would apply to as to the information required in buying and

selling, announced the following on March 31, 2006:

"People buying and selling real estate in Ontario will be better protected under the new Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, said Minister of Government

Services Gerry Phillips.

"`We know that buying and selling a home are two of the most important decisions Ontarians will make in their lifetime,' Phillips said. `This new legislation

will help protect consumers and play a role in maintaining a safe and vigorous marketplace for both residential and commercial real estate.' ...

"The government made new regulations for the act in November 2005 after consultations with the industry.

"`The new act will benefit both the consumer and the real estate practitioner, as it includes consumer protection initiatives, higher ethical standards and

standards of conduct, which, in turn, will strengthen confidence in the buying and selling process for all types of real estate in Ontario,' said Real Estate Council of Ontario chair Bruce

Law."

The reason I read that into the record is, I think this is the issue that the member's bill is dealing with, building that consumer confidence and consumer

protection. If the member's own government believed this was the right approach, why wasn't it introduced in the legislation in 2005?

Having said that, I know governments move in mysterious ways, and sometimes new ideas come forward after legislation is put in place. But it's important that

when you do make changes like that -- and this would make a major change in how real estate deals must be put together, what real estate agents must do and what the owner of the property must do --

I would think it would be a government initiative that would put that in place. I think the member pointed out that the bill isn't the answer; it's just a framework to build around. I think that's

really what it should have been, as a government bill. It should have been and should be part of the next review of the Consumer Protection Act, as opposed to a stand-alone bill, as to whether that

would work.

I think it's important that we look at this in the essence of what it does to the public. Again, in consumer protection we have to remember that people who own

properties are also consumers who need protection, and we don't want to put laws in place that make it more prohibitive for them to be able to sell their properties. We want to protect all

consumers. The whole essence of the bill is to make sure that everyone knows what they're buying and then gets what they pay for or what they put their money down for.

Again, with this being from a member of the government, I'm having real concerns. This morning, between leaving home and now, I've heard from at least six

people -- more than that, but at least half a dozen people -- who were very concerned about what the government did yesterday. In fact, they introduced a budget bill that we all -- I suppose the

people of Ontario knew that the government had passed a budget. They knew there was a budget bill that was going to implement the budget, changing the rules that needed to be changed in order to

implement the new budget plan for the government. But as they woke up this morning, they realized that something else had changed too, and they're all very concerned about why they hadn't heard

about that. That was the fact that

section H, I believe, changes the term of office -- the most basic part of democracy is the elected people -- for municipal politicians from three to four years.

The people said, "Oh, my gosh, how did this happen?"

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): That's been in the news for months. My constituency has known about it.

Mr. Hardeman: Obviously, the member had great interest in his constituency, but the Premier and the Liberal government had no interest in the

constituency of the whole province, because people all over say, "How did this happen?" Now, of course, what was interesting about it is that if you talk to the municipal politicians, they were

told about this in February, at a conference that the municipal politicians had gone to. At that time, the municipal people were not very happy with the provincial government because that was a

matter of a month after the government imposed the changes to the municipal pension plan, which was going to cost municipalities bundles of money. Every municipality was concerned. The Premier

needed something to announce that would make people in this room smile, so he announced that before the next election he would see that the term of office for municipal politics would be extended

by a year. Some people said, "How are you going to do that? You would have to introduce a piece of legislation because the term of office for municipal politicians is governed by the Municipal

Elections Act." He said, "Don't worry about it. I think I can sneak it into the budget bill." And all of a sudden we have the budget bill, we have two hours of public hearings, and most of those

public hearings were related to people coming in and opposing that part, but it was passed with a time-allocated vote, and now we have new laws.

The people didn't buy into that. It wasn't given to them during an election. They just woke up one morning and found it. I think what we need is building

consumer confidence, voter confidence, and we've got to quit doing it as this bill it trying to. That's why I just want to say I can't support this bill as it's being proposed.

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I read this bill. On first blush, I thought this was a bill that we should support. On further reading,

though, I am having some very real difficulties, and I hope the member will take some of this to heart. If it does pass today, and if it does get sent to committee for discussion, I believe that

the entire bill would quite literally have to be gutted. I'm going to outline what some of this is.

The bill starts out and makes the statement that an owner of a property, whether that is the actual owner who lives in the property or an owner who might rent

out the property, must disclose if a property was used to commit a crime. The letter that I received from the member from York West sets out some of the crimes that may be involved. He doesn't

limit the crimes or expand the crimes. His exact wording is, "The scope of the bill could include murders, kidnappings and hostage situations, callous acts committed against humans or animals,

sexual offences that include those committed on the Internet, prostitution rings, grow ops and gang-related crimes. The parameters will be established during committee." What this sets out is that

there is a broad potential range. It can be narrowed by committee, I would suppose; it could also be expanded by committee. But there is no way of knowing, if this passes today, exactly where we

are headed, whether it will run the entire gamut of the Criminal Code or whether it will extend to acts beyond the Criminal Code for which there are mandatory life sentences, such things as

trafficking in non-narcotic drugs, those that are hallucinatory or are manufactured as opposed to narcotic. We really do not know the scope of this bill.

This is a very sweeping potential invasion of privacy. The entire matter comes down to: Will it have an impact on the owner or potential owner as to the

enjoyment of that property? Will it result in a lessened enjoyment of a property if you were to find out that some type of criminal activity took place there? Quite frankly, with the exception of

grow ops and the health concerns, I fail to understand how that might happen. I really honestly fail to understand how that might happen.

I want to deal with grow ops and what already exists at this time. There was a bill before this House not too long ago. Minister Kwinter, the Minister of

Community Safety and Correctional Services, stood up and we had a fulsome debate over many days on a grow op bill. I remember people in this House, particularly government members, stating that

when this bill passes, this will be the definitive explanation on banning grow ops, on dealing with grow ops, on assisting the police and government agencies to get into the buildings to find them,

and that nothing else would need to be done. I remember that debate as if it were yesterday. It took place, it was real, and it was to be the final word on this issue.

What already happens to people who find their property used for a grow op? A gentleman called me to his house in Beaches-East York last year. He is a man who

lived in the house for many years. He purchased a house out in Pickering, where he and his family moved, but he kept this house and decided it was going to be a rental property. He was going to use

the money from the rental property to finance his new home in Pickering. This is not an uncommon experience. This is something many people do when they start to amass property. They will buy one

property, move to another one, rent out the first property and use the proceeds to amass wealth. It's quite normal.

He was a fine and upstanding citizen in East York, and I am sure is a fine and upstanding citizen to this day in the city of Pickering. But who was not fine

and upstanding were the people he rented it to. He rented this property to three young men who said they were going to live in the house. They agreed to look after the upkeep on the outside of the

house, and in fact they did. They agreed that he could come by every three or four months and inspect the inside to make sure no damage was done, and in fact that's what was going to happen.

What happened to this poor individual was that about three months after he rented out the property -- and he got his money every month; they paid him every

month -- the police busted it. When they went inside, they found marijuana plants and hydroponics. They found that the electricity had been tapped, because one of the things you want to hide is

that you're using inordinate amounts of electricity. They found it had been used for gambling. They arrested the three young men inside and charged them with various offences relating to a grow op

and to gambling. They called the owner of the house. He came down from Pickering and was as shocked as the neighbours and everyone else would be that this had happened in his property.

But what happened to him after that I think is instructive, because what this bill would do to him is make him even more a victim than he already was. The city

of Toronto, in conjunction with the police and the building inspectors, are called in in every grow op situation. Their first duty is to look and see if any structural or other damage has occurred

in the house and to require the owner of the house, under the building code, to make the necessary repairs.

This poor individual, who I don't want to name because he's already a victim, was ordered, among other things, to replace all the baseboards in the house,

because although it was not related to the grow op, the building inspector said they were not up to code. He was required to completely change the parking area at the rear of the house because it

was in contravention of one of the city bylaws. He was required to repair all the water damage, even water damage that was not caused as a result of the grow op; there had been some leaking in the

roof in previous years. He was required to replace all the windows because the windows were leaking and were not up to code. He was required to completely redo the wiring system in the house. He

was required to remove and change the front porch, and he was required to remove and change all the cupboards that were found in the house.

I don't know how much of that was a result of the grow op, but it was certainly a result of a building inspector, and I think a zealous, perhaps even an

overzealous building inspector, going in and making sure that this person, this innocent victim, was required to do all this because his house had been used unbeknownst to him as a grow op.

Here we have a circumstance that went well beyond the mould and the damage and what was actually happening inside the house. The owner was required to spend

tens of thousands of dollars and many personal hours of work to accommodate all the changes that had to be made inside the structure because his building had been used contrary to law.

What we have here is particular and serious wording that causes me even more concern. I think about this poor gentleman and what happened to him already under

the existing laws and under the building code. This is what's going to happen here, and I read this from the act itself.

Section 62 is going to be added to the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act

so that "the vendor warrants to the purchaser that the building or structure has never been used, during the time that the vendor had a legal interest in the land, in the commission of a criminal

offence resulting in the conviction of any person...."

This causes me some considerable grief because the law is not confined simply to those that are suggested, and even some of those that are, such as sexual

offences, gang-related crimes, grow ops, callous acts and kidnappings -- let me just pose the question and maybe the member can answer this in his two-minute rebuttal.

If a person is assaulted inside his or her own house, whether it be spousal assault or anything else, and it is of a particularly serious or grievous nature,

the victim, the person who was assaulted -- and someone else was convicted of this -- has to reveal this. They have to reveal at the time of the sale of the house that a person came into the house,

assaulted them, beat them, did whatever. They have to reveal that their house was the scene of a crime. They already have had a bad enough experience, having been assaulted and beaten, and they may

want to move out of the neighbourhood or the house as a result of that. They then have to expose to any potential buyer that they were a victim.

I ask the same things about victims of a home invasion. This happens all too frequently in our society. You open the door, someone comes in and does the home

invasion, ties you up, ransacks the house, steals the money, does whatever and leaves. They subsequently get caught, but the victim, who then may say, "I want to move away from here," has to reveal

to the world that they were a victim, that a criminal offence took place in their house. They had absolutely nothing to do with it. They are victims already, and they are going to have to reveal

this so that a potential buyer may say, "I want to get out of this." This is an easy way to get out of it. I find this quite horrendous.

What about the victim of a robbery? Somebody robs you. You're not home today, and you go home and somebody has ransacked the house. They finally catch him.

That happened on the property. You're a victim and you have to reveal that. What about a victim of mischief to private property? Although that's not included and is usually a fairly minor crime, it

could be. You go home at night and see that somebody has thrown a brick through your window. They catch the perpetrator. Okay, there you are. You then have to reveal that your house was used in the

commission of a crime, because it was.

This causes me, and should cause all of you, considerable grief. The owners are going to have to reveal that it was used as a crime. They are not the

perpetrators; they are the victims. That's why I have some considerable problem with this.

When I look down to the next

section on tenancy, it is even more problematic. When you look down at that, it says, "The landlord warrants to the tenant that

the building or structure in which the rental unit...." That's what I want to focus on: the building or structure. If anywhere inside the building or structure was used for criminal purposes, the

landlord must reveal this to all potential and future tenants as long as the landlord owns it.

What happens here? The landlord is held responsible for literally every tenant and everything that is happening in an apartment unit. We know that there are

some very large ones; we know that there are up to 500 apartments in a building. If somebody commits something serious in an apartment, one of 500, this bill will say that the landlord must reveal

that to every future potential tenant who comes to the building as long as he owns it. If there is an altercation -- two guys come home and have a drunken brawl in front of the elevators in a

public area, and the police come and take them away; maybe one of them gets hurt badly -- that is going to have to be revealed to every single potential tenant as long as that landlord owns the

property, because a criminal offence took place inside that apartment building. I don't have to tell you that if you have a 500-unit apartment building, this is going to send shivers up your spine.

It will become increasingly difficult for you ever to rent out your building, because you'll have to say, "There was a criminal offence that took place in my building four years ago, where two guys

went at each other" -- nothing to do with the building, nothing to do with the property, nothing to do with the cleanliness, nothing to do with anything, but it is going to cause great grief, I'm

sure, to the landlord community.

There will be a huge reluctance on the part of landlords and owners to reveal this information -- a huge reluctance. If they know that a criminal activity is

taking place, I will tell you, they will be reluctant to go to the police and explain anything, because this is going to cause them nothing but grief in the end and make it difficult for them to

rent the property. I think they're just going to start turning a blind eye -- something that I do not want them to do.

The real remedy, I would suggest, is not within the body of this bill. The real remedy is to force owners, to force landlords and to force those who have

committed the act to completely clean up and make whole again the property that has been damaged as a result of the criminal activity. If there is a law that will force that, that would take the

money, however that's done, whether you take it from people's wages or fine them or take it through the courts, and if it costs $20,000 to fix it up and they must be required, as part of the

penalty in law, in the case of a grow op, to pay that to make whole the landlord's property and to make sure there is no mould and no damage, that is what should be done. To put innocent people at

risk, to put landlords at risk who, through no fault of their own, are victims, I think is a mistake.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland): I rise to speak on Bill 40, the bill from my good friend from York West. Once again, it's one of those

pieces of legislation that, if passed, will protect our constituents. I think that's what we're all here about.

Before I get into that, and I know I have a few minutes, I just need to address something. I must say that I'm disappointed with my good friend from Oxford,

who took about half of his time to talk not about the private member's bill that we're supposed to be here talking about today but about a piece of legislation, the budget bill, that passed last

night, which had a piece in it about the extension of municipal councils' term of office. I didn't think that this was appropriate, but then he's got the freedom to speak about what he likes to

speak about.

Just to explain, I was disappointed that his constituents weren't aware this was happening; he got phone calls this morning. I feel bad for the people of

Oxford, because this member's not keeping them informed. I feel bad because he, as a member of AMO, knew darn well that AMO has been lobbying this government and the previous government about the

extension of terms of council. I'm going to stop there because I am here to talk about the bill.

I think the member made it very, very clear -- I hear the previous speakers -- that the bill is not very specific. Many times we sit in this House, whether

it's a government bill or a private member's bill, and we hear that there's no room for debate, no room for input. I think the member was very, very clear. I know his cover letter that we all got

was that this created the basic of a framework, and he was looking forward to committee to get that type of input so that if the bill becomes law someday we'd have it right. The framework wasn't

rigid, I think he made that very, very clear, and I think I need to commend the member for that.

Sometimes, as I said before, whether it's a piece of government legislation or a private member's, we seem to put in some pretty tight constraints, like a

straitjacket. That bill deals that and there's not much wiggle room, and we're afraid that if we make the wiggle room, then the bill loses its flavour.

I think maybe this is a way that we should look at future legislation in this place, to leave those opportunities, so that we not only debate them during

second and third readings, but to let the committee do the real work that they're supposed to do; bring in those ideas from the public and members of this Legislature to talk about how we can best

address the issue.

On a little bit of a lighter note that refers to this, in my riding, as a matter of fact in the town where I live, we have Proctor House. This was a piece of

real estate that a shipping magnate from years gone by had acquired. It's a beautiful old home. It's now a museum. The property is owned by the conservation authority, but the municipality

administers the museum, the house. It's a beautiful house. It's turning into the museum to showcase the era in which the house was built, and the costumes and all those wonderful things that they

did back in those days, and we're honoured to have it so we can remember those memories.

Subsequent to that, just in the last five or six years, they built a beautiful theatre, Proctor Barn, which is a replica of a barn of the era and was

transplanted to complement the house. They have some fantastic live performances.

But back to the house. The house was known, and still is, for the Proctor ghost. I can tell you, as much as I would love to live in that house, there's no way

that my wife would ever move there because of the stigma -- although it might not be true -- but the stigma of that ghost.

I can just picture myself. When we moved to Brighton 26 years ago, we just wanted to move into the county. We didn't check the history; we didn't check where

people came from. It was kind of nice and refreshing, moving from the city to a nice rural community, a different way of life. I could just see me and my wife and four young kids buying Proctor

House and then somebody telling us, "Well, Mr. Rinaldi, this house was known for a ghost." I can tell you, I would probably have to move pretty quickly, knowing my wife.

Just to prove that, as mayor of that great municipality, I was at one of the functions. Over the mantle of the fireplace in this great big living area, there's

an old mirror that's sort of faded away, as old mirrors go. I can't remember the function. I think it was around Christmastime, and myself and some other folks had the opportunity to have their

picture taken in front of the mirror. You know what? In the picture afterwards, just behind our heads, there was a shadow. I know it's from the faded mirror, but it was a ghost. I have proof in my

house with the Proctor ghost behind my head. We talk about superstitions, but there are people that believe in those things.

But more about the bill. I think the point we're trying to make here today is that "Buyer beware" is not good enough anymore. We know that with some

environmental issues. We have some laws in this province where we have to unveil or reveal, and in many cases go through some pretty stringent tests to make sure that a property you buy, whether

it's commercial or industrial -- and from what they tell me these days, if you have to get a mortgage for a residential house, in many cases, depending where it's located, you have to have an

environmental study done on it to protect the buyer who is potentially buying the property.

We talked about some of the things that might not fit this -- maybe not. Maybe, through committee, we will identify or the member from York West will be able

to identify those things that are right and those things should not be there. I think we need to be open-minded about that. But, for example, I'd be very concerned if a house I buy is a grow op --

we talked about this from all sides of the House; we used that example from all members -- that might have left some of those chemicals in the house that maybe my kids, not knowing any better,

would come in contact with, or even myself. When you buy a house -- I know I did it every time we moved. This is why I haven't moved for 26 years: because I've got to go through the torturous

process of doing some renovation, not knowing what you're going to find when you tear down a wall or a window. And you may find one of those things that might create some problems.

I want to congratulate the member for recognizing the need to protect our communities. I know he's taking the right approach. Let it go to committee, and let's

find those things we need to protect the best. I look forward to this bill moving on.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I don't have a lot of time to participate, but I certainly, as a rule, like to support private

members' bills or resolutions, whatever side of the House they come from. Knowing the member for York West, I know he's a very sincere individual, and he certainly tabled a piece of legislation

that he feels is going to be helpful to his constituents and others in the province of Ontario.

Regrettably, I think that perhaps not enough time was given to assessing the impacts of the legislation in terms of the scope. I'm not personally too worried

about that, but because it does, in many respects, revictimize victims of the crime, I don't believe our caucus can be supportive. Certainly the indication from the third party's spokesperson here

today is that they're going to be unable to support it as well. That's regrettable, but I think we can get the sense that the majority in the House, the Liberal Party, will support their colleague

and get it to committee.

I think all of us know the sad fact is that virtually no private members' legislation, substantive legislation, ever comes back for third reading. That's the

sad reality of this place. If we want to have a motion that says we're calling every Tuesday Dead Duck Day or something, that might have a chance of getting acceptance, but any substantive motion

-- and there are a number on the legislative agenda from all three parties in this place. I can talk about two in our party. Mr. Klees has one on organ donation, a very important initiative. Mr.

Jackson has one dealing with a mandatory inquest for children who die while in the custody of the children's aid society. Those are important initiatives that I suspect would have the support, and

have had the support, of all members of the House when they've been debated and voted on in second reading. But the reality is, they're not going to be called for third reading. We put them forward

as priorities for our party, and we are now looking forward to priorities for the NDP and for the Liberal government. But at the end of the day, since our bills are all substantive and deal with

important issues, they're not likely to see the light of day.

The only way is to perhaps get around the situation -- we've seen efforts by Mr. Zimmer, of course, with his legislation, which, again, is a bill that we agree

with. Ms. Jeffrey has one on sprinklers. I think she's had every fire department in the province of Ontario writing to me, as the House leader of the official opposition, saying that I'm

somehow the problem here in terms of getting this legislation through. Of course, if you know how this place operates, you know that's not the case. Certainly, the member for York West knows that

the opposition doesn't have the responsibility for calling legislation in this place. But that's the sort of thing that does go on around the perimeter and efforts to circumvent the system. I don't

blame members for doing that, because the record is that we don't get beyond referring these to committee, and we have some interesting discussions in committee, and maybe some amendments come

forward.

Certainly with this legislation, it would require amendments to the scope. I think most of us could support it if the scope was narrowed down to a significant

degree. So then it gets amended, and then it will die on the order paper. That's what happens. The public, when they hear about this, just can't understand it, but that's the way the place, sadly,

has operated and continues to operate, regardless of which party is the government of the day.

So I guess we all have to take responsibility for that. I guess at some point, if we all stood up on our hind legs and said, "Enough is enough; we want to see

two or three substantive private member's pieces pass through this House that have unanimous support," maybe it could happen, but I'll be a very happy man if indeed the day ever occurs while I'm a

member.

The Acting Speaker: The member for London-Fanshawe.

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the chance and opportunity to comment on Bill 40,

An Act respecting

the disclosure of information about crimes to purchasers of land and to tenants.

I was listening carefully to many speakers in this House, certainly to the member from York West, the member from Beaches-East York, the member from Oxford and

the member from Leeds-Grenville. The member from York West is a great member, as everybody knows in this House. He's been around for a long time, from a municipal councillor to a member

representing York West, always bringing important issues to us in this place concerning his constituents, concerning the people of Ontario, which I think he represents very well.

I think the intent of the bill is great. It tries to protect many people across the province of Ontario, especially young people. Getting married, they want to

buy their first home for themselves to raise a family, to raise kids, to enjoy their investment. I think they have a right to know what happened to the house before them. They have a total right to

know if the house was a scene for criminal activities or a grow op for marijuana or drugs.

I think the member from York West was clear at the beginning when he was talking about the bill not being defined yet. That's why he was hoping it would go to

committee, and then the committee would define it or shape it up and make it such an important bill to deal with very important issues.

I want to share the concern of the member from Beaches-East York. I respect his opinion, and I know he had great experience when he was a municipal mayor for

his riding. I know he brings great information to this House, and we value and respect his concerns all the time, but we don't want to go far and try to explain the bill or give it more different

explanations. We want to be fair to the member from York West, because he stated at the beginning when he was introducing this bill that he knows it's not firm yet, not defined yet. So, hopefully,

when the bill goes to committee, it will satisfy the member from Beaches-East York and the member from the Conservative Party, because it's very important to create awareness among all the

people.

I think, as a purchaser, I have a right to know what kind of activities were happening in the house, maybe some criminal activities that, psychologically, I

won't be able to accept. I also agree with the member from Beaches-East York: We cannot list every criminal activity, whether somebody was fighting with his wife, or the police came to visit for

some reason, or we rented a place and that tenant used it for criminal activities. Well, we're not going to penalize the owner and landlord. I agree with him 100%. I don't dispute that, but we have

to create an important issue which the member from York West brought to us. I think the homeowner, when people want to buy a house to raise a family, has a right to know the history of that house,

if criminal activities happened in the house or if it was a grow op for marijuana. I think it's our right to know. Then, after our knowledge about what kind of activities happened in that house, we

can decide if we want to buy it or not. I don't think the intent of the bill is to open it up to all criminal activities -- whether somebody is smacking someone or if police have visited the place.

I don't think that's the intent of the bill. I think the bill has good intentions to create awareness among people, and it's the right of people who are going to invest thousands and thousands of

dollars in a certain location to know what kind of property they are buying.

I want to echo my friend and seatmate, the member from Northumberland, who talked about the ghost place, which everybody knows was on CBC one time. I don't

want to buy a place that's well known as a ghost place. I don't believe in ghosts, but for some psychological reason, I would be stressed out and I wouldn't be able to live there. If it was a place

where a crime had been committed, like a kidnapping or money laundering or grow ops or many different activities, I have a right to know about those activities before I buy it, because I'm

investing my future and my savings to create a place for myself and my family. I think I have a total right to know about the situation of the house or the unit I'm going to buy or lease or

whatever.

I don't think the intent of the bill is to open it up to all criminal activities, because they are endless. I don't think the bill intends to list all

apartments in a 500-apartment unit. I don't think the member from York West wants to create an obstacle to renting for tenants across Ontario, or for the many houses across Ontario from being

leased or sold.

I think the member from York West has great intentions and I believe he was honest and sincere about it from the beginning. He told the people of Ontario that

this bill does not define -- and he wants it to go to committee to get help from many members, to have input from both sides of the House, to make it a great bill that we can use to protect the

people of Ontario, and also to satisfy the member from Oxford. It's very important for us. We were elected to this place and have been given time to bring issues concerning our constituents to be

debated in this place through bills or motions or whatever comments we make. It's important to raise these issues on a continual basis, because they are very important to all of us.

I hope the bill goes to the committee. I'm looking forward to more debate and I'm looking forward to supporting it.

The Acting Speaker: I'll now return to the member for York West, who has two minutes to reply.

Mr. Sergio: I wish to thank all the members for the contributions they have made, positive or negative. The only point I would like to stress

with the members of the opposition is that at the outset of the introduction of my bill, I said that this is not the final say, and I wish they would change their minds. It's unfortunate that the

House was just vacated now by school kids, because the intent of this bill is to protect those people.

I concur with the member from Leeds−Grenville when he says that maybe this is a waste of time in here on Thursday morning. Everybody comes and says their

own thing. Let's give an opportunity, and bring it back. Let's give ourselves an opportunity to send it to a committee and say, "We like this and we don't like that." That is the purpose of being

here, not only on Thursday morning but the rest of the week. So I would say to the members that indeed if there is such a concern -- as he said at the beginning, "Yes, I'd like to support it

but...." This is typical. I would say to the members, let's see what the public has to say. This is going to cost absolutely -- and I'm pleased to see the Minister of Health here today -- millions

and millions of dollars because of the activities that are going on in our entire province, especially here in Toronto. I say to the members, Is it possible that we're closing our minds, our ears

and our concern to what the Ontario police and other members of the force are going through with respect to grow ops and other criminal activities in our communities? Are we this irresponsible that

we are saying no, regardless of what happens, that we don't care about it?

I hope that, indeed, this will be approved today and I will be looking to the members on the other side to bring in some good recommendations during the normal

process.

The Acting Speaker: That concludes the time available for debate on ballot item number 36. The time provided for private members' public

business has expired.

ONTARIO WORKERS'

MEMORIAL ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LE MONUMENT

COMMÉMORATIF DES TRAVAILLEURS

DE L'ONTARIO

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): We will deal first with ballot item number 35, standing in the name of Mr. Ramal.

Mr. Ramal has moved second reading of Bill 86,

An Act to establish the Ontario Workers' Memorial. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We'll defer the vote until afterwards.

DISCLOSURE OF CRIMES

ON PROPERTY ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LA DIVULGATION

DES CRIMES COMMIS SUR DES BIENS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Mr. Sergio has moved second reading of Bill 40,

An Act respecting the disclosure of information about

crimes to purchasers of land and to tenants. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96, the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Call in the members. This is a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1203 to 1208.

ONTARIO WORKERS'

MEMORIAL ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LE MONUMENT

COMMÉMORATIF DES TRAVAILLEURS

DE L'ONTARIO

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Mr. Ramal has moved second reading of ballot item number 35. All those in favour of this question will

please rise and remain standing.

Ayes

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bisson, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Brownell, Jim

Delaney, Bob

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Kormos, Peter

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, Dave

Marchese, Rosario

McNeely, Phil

Miller, Norm

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Scott, Laurie

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Van Bommel, Maria

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 24; the nays are zero.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96, the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): Can I refer the bill to the standing committee on social policy?

The Acting Speaker: Shall the bill be referred to the standing committee on social policy? Agreed. So ordered.

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Ballot item 36, Bill 40, was just referred to the committee of the whole House. I

seek unanimous consent for that particular bill to be sent to the standing committee on general government.

The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to refer Bill 40 to the standing committee on general government? Agreed? I heard a no.

All matters relating to private members' public business having now been completed, I do now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 p.m.

The House recessed from 1210 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FAIR TRADE

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I rise in this House today to recognize Ten Thousand Villages, the largest and oldest fair trade

organization in North America. I'm proud to say that they are headquartered in New Hamburg in the riding of Waterloo-Wellington. The people coordinating this organization have asked me to inform

the Legislature that Saturday, May 13, will be World Fair Trade Day, and events will take place in more than 60 countries to observe it.

Ten Thousand Villages is a non-profit program of the Mennonite Central Committee. I would like to quote Diana Mounce of that organization, who describes their

work in the following way: "Ten Thousand Villages provides vital, fair income to people in the developing world by marketing their handicrafts and telling their stories in North America. Purchasing

fair trade products -- coffee, jewellery and beautiful handicrafts for the home -- offers increased support to farmers and artisans in some of the world's poorest places by providing much-needed

income. As a result, their children can go to school, and families are healthier" -- all superb reasons to support their very good work.

I want to also say that we in Waterloo-Wellington are most grateful to the Mennonite Central Committee for the way in which they band together with their

neighbours when help is needed most. Our area has been through three destructive tornadoes that occurred in 1985, 1996 and 2005. Each time, the Mennonite Central Committee was there to help us pick

up the pieces and help restore people's lives back to normal. That is the spirit of giving and action that needs to be recognized and rekindled every day in this House. I want to congratulate, once

again, this fine organization.

CONSERVATION

Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto-Danforth): Last night, I attended a forum at Toronto city hall about green energy alternatives to the Portlands

Energy Centre. This forum was just one of a series of conversations, dialogues going on in the city about how Toronto can keep its lights on in the most cost-effective, environmentally sustainable

manner. That would allow us the opportunity to stop the construction of a mega gas-fired power plant on Toronto's waterfront, one of our most precious assets.

At each of these conversations, energy efficiency and conservation are seen as the answer, the cost-effective, environmentally sustainable answer, and yet our

Minister of Energy continues to argue that the Portlands Energy Centre is necessary to meet Toronto's peak power needs.

There are proven ways to cut demand and meet peak power needs in this city. One of the things we can do is provide low-interest loans to businesses,

institutions and homeowners to help them cut their energy costs, to cut their air conditioning needs. Unfortunately, this government has chosen a different course.

A course that they could follow, the one that has been set by Toronto Hydro, demonstrated today that they can concretely cut power demand by helping

institutions and businesses use their emergency generators to make power. This government has to go in a different direction.

FAIR TRADE

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): I rise today, similar to the member from Waterloo-Wellington, to recognize an important celebration and

speak about an important issue. May 13, this Saturday, is World Fair Trade Day. This important day recognizes the need and promotes the means by which we can all ensure that developing countries

around the world have an equitable chance of trading goods on the world market. Furthermore, it also provides an opportunity to celebrate all of the individuals, organizations and companies that

engage in fair trade practices around the world.

Fair trade constitutes a strategy for poverty alleviation and sustainable development. It also creates opportunities for producers who have been economically

disadvantaged or marginalized. It allows for the capacity building of local entrepreneurship, ensures payment of a fair price for goods and services to people in developing countries and

incorporates the fundamental concept of environmental sustainability.

With 15 stores across Ontario, Ten Thousand Villages has been a leader on this front. I would like to recognize the work of this organization. For over 50

years, they have been working to promote fair trade issues. There is a Ten Thousand Villages store in my own riding of Oakville, which I have visited often. I'd like to thank Ingrid Pauls, the

store manager, for her work on raising this issue. I would also like to encourage all members of the Legislature and all Ontarians to become informed about fair trade issues.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I rise today to express concern with regard to a funding shortfall in the Ontario co-operatives pension plan and

the devastating impact this shortfall will have on businesses and farmers in rural Ontario. The Financial Services Commission of Ontario has ruled that all farm co-operatives are jointly and

severally responsible for pension plan shortfalls. Ontario's deputy superintendent of pensions is proposing to block any windup of the pension plan unless the sponsors put up the money to restore

all benefits earned by pensioners and active employees up to April 2003, which of course they have appealed. This is certainly a positive and deserved outcome for pensioners, but this decision also

has a negative impact on Ontario's farm co-operatives, Gay Lea Foods dairy and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. All farmer-owned organizations are being told they will have to raise about $60

million to cover pension shortfalls. Suppliers were told that pension liabilities will have first priority over inventory and accounts receivable, which has resulted in suppliers putting plan

members on a COD basis as of May 1.

Spring is the peak season for farm supply co-ops, a season in which most co-ops do half of their yearly business. This is not a good day for farmers or rural

Ontario. If cooler heads do not prevail, all agricultural co-ops could go bankrupt. I believe the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has to step up to the plate and do whatever needs

to be done to help keep these businesses and rural Ontario alive and flourishing.

WOMEN OF DISTINCTION AWARDS

Mrs. Liz Sandals (Guelph-Wellington): This evening I will have the pleasure of attending the YMCA-YWCA of Guelph's 11th annual Women of

Distinction Awards, which showcases the many women in Guelph who are making a difference in a broad spectrum of community life. Since 1996, the YMCA-YWCA of Guelph has recognized well over 300

women. I would like to congratulate all of the 2006 nominees for their contributions to the advancement of women and to the quality of life in Guelph-Wellington.

Among this year's 47 nominees, they have contributed to the community in many ways. The nominees include the founder of Canada's first bookstore-café, a

union president and the chief executive officer of a $1.3-billion multinational corporation. We have a number of firsts: the first public school teacher to attend the International Space University

in California, the first director of the university's office of open learning and the first female television producer in Guelph. We have an internationally recognized expert on fish genetics, a

former synchronized swimmer and team physician for the Canadian Olympic synchronized swim team and the creator of the South Asian Women's Group. There's a nurse practitioner who specializes in

wound care and the founder of Guelph's HIV/AIDS clinic.

I would like to thank the Y and their organizing committee for their commitment to recognizing the contributions of women in Guelph and Wellington counties.

All of this year's nominees are women of distinction.

NORTH GRENVILLE DISTRICT

HIGH SCHOOL

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I rise in the House today to make members aware of a troubling and dangerous situation in my riding

that calls out for action by the Minister of Education. Recently, the Kemptville fire chief raised serious concerns regarding the safety of North Grenville District High School. In a public

statement, the chief said, "If a fire were to start in one of the lower areas of the school, the occupants of the building would be in great jeopardy due to smoke travel." Chief Tim Bond also said

that his fire crews would be at risk entering the school, and he states that the students and staff should not "have to deal in a high-risk environment such as this on a daily basis."

There's no doubt that North Grenville District High School is in need of replacement. It's unable to meet the needs of the student body and shortchanges

students in many ways. But the fire chief's warnings are the most serious and pressing concerns.

According to ministry guidelines, the problems at North Grenville cannot be addressed until 2016, but this situation has to be addressed quickly. It is a

safety issue and I call on the Minister of Education to expedite the identification of this school as a priority for replacement. No student should have to enter the halls of a building that the

fire chief deems too dangerous for his own fire crew.

SOUTH ASIAN COMMUNITY

Mr. Vic Dhillon (Brampton West-Mississauga): It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to acknowledge the contribution of the

South Asian community to the province of Ontario.

I invite all Ontarians to join us in celebrating South Asian Heritage Month throughout the month of May. South Asian Heritage Month, the first of its kind in

Canada, commemorates the first arrivals from the Indian subcontinent to the Americas beginning in May 1838.

South Asians have been contributing to Ontario for over 100 years. Today, Ontario is home to more than 500,000 people of South Asian origin, some 7% of our

population. While the South Asian community has preserved and shared its traditions, it has at the same time contributed to virtually every facet of business and public service in our communities.

South Asians have come to live in Ontario from India and Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. Immigrants of South Asian descent have come from many other countries as well.

I encourage my colleagues and all Ontarians to celebrate South Asian Heritage Month. I ask that we visibly demonstrate our recognition for the contribution

this rich and dynamic community has made and continues to make to our province and our country.

CANADIAN MEDICALERT FOUNDATION

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): Joining us today are Abigail Brown, Mario Longo and Stephen Reid, who represent Canada's largest

membership charity, which is celebrating its 45th anniversary of protecting and saving lives, including many in my own riding of Etobicoke North.

The Canadian MedicAlert Foundation provides essential emergency medical information services that are a critical part of emergency preparedness and health care

in our community. Celebrating 45 years of charitable service to Canadians is indeed a significant milestone for any organization. For many of us, MedicAlert is synonymous, as you'll appreciate,

Speaker, with a bracelet. I was impressed to learn, however, of the services that actually go behind the bracelet, especially the emergency response centre that offers all Canadians protection

24/7.

This May marks MedicAlert Month, and I encourage all members of this Legislature and citizens of this province to learn more about MedicAlert services. If you

have a medical condition or an allergy, speak to your doctor or pharmacist and ask if MedicAlert services can be right for you.

In closing, I salute this organization for all they have done for Canadians across this country in terms of medical protection, because as you will appreciate

and as I can attest to you as a physician, in an emergency, seconds really do count. We salute MedicAlert.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr. Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): I'm pleased to stand in my place today to thank the Minister of Finance for his excellent budget in March, in

which he gave the city of Niagara Falls $1.675 million to help the city repair its roads and bridges.

The city of Niagara Falls had already identified some $40 million worth of repairs that needed to be made over the next five years and had put in place a

program that could only accomplish half the work that needed to be done. Thanks to our government's budget initiative, the city of Niagara Falls now has the opportunity to do more and to jump-start

its road rehabilitation program. I'm proud to report that at its last city council meeting, city aldermen adopted a program that will see up to 35 streets rehabilitated and paved this year.

Important roads such as Victoria Avenue, Morrison Street, Ontario Street, Whirlpool Road and O'Neil Street, along with many other local roads, courts and cul-de-sacs, are going forward.

This investment in infrastructure renewal at the local level by the McGuinty government is an excellent example of how a positive partnership with the cities

and towns of Ontario can really help the citizens of the province right where they need it: on their front doorstep.

The people of Niagara Falls want to thank the government of Ontario, this assembly and, in particular, the Premier and Minister Duncan for thinking

provincially but acting locally.

VISITORS

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Today, I'm very pleased to announce that in the east gallery some very important

visitors from the riding of Brant are here for page Alyna Poremba: parents Rich and Melissa, siblings Nancy and Joe and a good friend, Michelle Ratko, whom I taught and who wants my job someday. I

appreciate their being here in the House.

CORRECTION OF RECORD

Hon. Steve Peters (Minister of Labour): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I rise to correct the record in reference to a comment I made, in

response to a question from the member from Northumberland, regarding the Making the Grade project. The correct response should have been, "I've directed the ministry to ensure that the Employment

Standards Act poster now contains a

section for young workers."

VISITORS

Ms. Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'm proud to introduce to this House Fauzia Viqar and her son, Isfandyar,

as well as Mr. David Feliciant, who's over in the members' lobby. They join us from the Children's Aid Society of Hamilton. They were the successful bidders in Volunteer Hamilton's "Join Your MPP

for Lunch." Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): In the same spirit, we have with us in the Speaker's gallery the legal affairs committee from the

Parliament of Finland, led by Ms. Tuija Brax, chair of the committee. The delegation is accompanied by His Excellency Pasi Patokallio, ambassador of Finland to Canada. Please join me in welcoming

them. Thank you for coming.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

MUSEUM MONTH

Hon. Caroline Di Cocco (Minister of Culture): I'm pleased today to stand in the Legislature to encourage all members of the House and the

people of Ontario to participate in the province-wide celebration of May Is Museum Month, organized by the Ontario Museum Association.

Our province is famous for its wealth of museums. The Ontario Fact Book says that Ontario is the place to be if you are a fan of museums. It says, "Ontario is

a gold mine of unique, educational, world-class -- and yes, weird -- museums and collections. In fact, there are more than 600 non-profit museums and another 200 commercial venues where you will

find everything from reconstructed dinosaurs to shoes and artefacts."

We have a lot to be proud of and to celebrate. The government of Ontario -- under the leadership of Dalton McGuinty -- supports our museums because they are an

integral component of the cultural, social and economic fabric of this province. Museums enrich our lives and create better communities. They contribute to an innovative economy, promote lifelong

learning, safeguard our heritage and improve the quality of life for all Ontarians. Just as important, our museums enhance the education and growth of our young people.

I'd like to take this opportunity to highlight the important role played by the Ontario Museum Association. For over 30 years, the association has been a

guiding partner to museums of every description across the province. On March 25, I launched May is Museum Month 2006 at the Textile Museum of Canada. It was an excellent opportunity to meet

members from the museum community and to celebrate the role of museums in supporting education, cultural tourism and community engagement.

We also highlighted the special participation of Toronto's museums in this celebration. The McMichael Canadian Art Collection, the 10 city of Toronto museums,

the ROM, the Textile Museum of Canada, the Bata Shoe Mu