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

May 17, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-May-17 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 17 May 2001 Jeudi 17 mai 2001

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ

ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(OUTSIDE RIDERS), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(PASSAGERS À L'EXTÉRIEUR

D'UN VÉHICULE)

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ

ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(OUTSIDE RIDERS), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(PASSAGERS À L'EXTÉRIEUR

D'UN VÉHICULE)

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PUBLIC EDUCATION

MISSING CHILDREN

BEVERLY MASCOLL

VISITORS FROM MATTHEWS HALL

NURSES

STEVEN MELL

WATER QUALITY

NURSES

EXCHANGE PROJECT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

PROTECTION ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA PROTECTION

DE LA MORAINE D'OAK RIDGES

BROWNFIELDS STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES FRICHES CONTAMINÉES

GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'EFFICIENCE

DU GOUVERNEMENT

AMBULANCE SERVICES COLLECTIVE

BARGAINING ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

SUR LA NÉGOCIATION COLLECTIVE

DANS LES SERVICES D'AMBULANCE

POLICE SERVICES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES SERVICES POLICIERS

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

SMART GROWTH STRATEGY

GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY

SMART GROWTH STRATEGY

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

PROTECTION ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA PROTECTION

DE LA MORAINE D'OAK RIDGES

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

PROTECTION ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA PROTECTION

DE LA MORAINE D'OAK RIDGES

SMART GROWTH STRATEGY

ANNIVERSARY OF

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

HOSPITAL FUNDING

EDUCATION FUNDING

SMART GROWTH STRATEGY

EDUCATION FUNDING

TOURISM

ANNIVERSARY OF

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

NORTHERN MEDICAL SCHOOL

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

NORTHERN MEDICAL SCHOOL

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

NURSES

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

WATER EXTRACTION

DIABETES TREATMENT

NURSES

BRAIN TUMOURS

NURSES

PROTECTION OF MINORS

NURSES

PROTECTION OF MINORS

NURSES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REMEDIES FOR ORGANIZED CRIME

AND OTHER UNLAWFUL

ACTIVITIES ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LES RECOURS

POUR CRIME ORGANISÉ

ET AUTRES ACTIVITÉS ILLÉGALES

Thursday 17 May 2001 Jeudi 17 mai 2001

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ

ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

Mr Agostino moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 34,

An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act to increase the penalties for contraventions of the Act and regulations / Projet de loi 34, Loi

modifiant la

Loi sur la santé et la sécurité au travail en vue d'augmenter les peines en cas d'infraction aux dispositions de la Loi et des règlements.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member for Hamilton East has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I thank the members of the House who will participate in this debate. I certainly plan to make this a

non-partisan debate, because this is a non-partisan issue as it relates to health and safety and to the safety of working people and working families across the province of Ontario. I don't think

there's any doubt everyone in this House believes very strongly that we must do everything possible to prevent another injury, to prevent another death in the workplace.

We all come to this Legislature with good intentions; I think we all come here with diverse backgrounds, diverse communities, diverse political, ideological

ideas and diverse ways that we believe this province should be. We also bring with us, which I believe is a very positive thing, our life experiences, that often help us be part of this Legislature

and shape policies, ideas and government legislation that hopefully will make this a better place to live. This bill is motivated by what I believe is necessary for the people of Ontario. This bill

would make us among the leaders, if not the leaders, in the toughest penalties for health and safety violations in North America.

There is a personal experience and reason that I believe it's important, as well, to bring this legislation to the floor today and to have this legislation

debated and hopefully passed. Shortly after my family arrived from Italy, my father suffered a horrific industrial accident at the age of 33. He had been working as a child, from the age of 14, in

Italy in construction as a bricklayer. Two years after arriving in Canada, on a worksite in Dunnville, he was laying cement, was backing away from where he was working and fell through an uncovered

elevator shaft 40 feet to the ground. He was instantly paralyzed from the waist down and spent the next 30 years of his life in a wheelchair, in an accident that contributed to his premature death

at the age of 63. That was an accident that was preventable. All it would have taken would have been a wooden barrier around that elevator shaft and he would not have fallen through. There were no

charges laid; there were no fines; there were no convictions; there was absolutely nothing.

We had to make it on our own as best we could. As a young boy, I remember seeing my father in a wheelchair and could not do the things with my father that most

young boys want to do, to partake in activities. As that accident was preventable, that tragedy that struck my family and changed my family forever, I believe that many, many others that have

occurred since and will occur today, tomorrow, next week and next year in this province are also preventable. Unfortunately, the statistics are staggering. In Ontario last year, 409 people died

either directly as a result of workplace injury or from related illnesses, from workplace illness or disease.

Unfortunately, the fines and convictions in cases in Ontario last year declined. In 1999 there were 309 convictions and $6.9 million in fines for workplace

health and safety violations. Put that in perspective with the fact that in 1999, 358,000 Ontarians were injured in the workplace; 409 died in the workplace. The total fines and convictions in 1999

were $6.9 million and 309 convictions for this horrific number of accidents that occurred.

As we get close to the summer and young people are now going into the workforce, young people have summer jobs to pay for their university, to pay for spending

money for high school. In 1999, 16,000 young women and men between the ages of 15 and 24 were injured on the job. Sixteen of those were killed. Sixteen young people were killed on the job in

Ontario in 1999.

People have often turned tragedies into a way of helping others. One of those heroes is Mr Rob Ellis. His son, Dave, at the age of 18, was killed the second day

on the job. He was working unsupervised, untrained, in a bakery. The young man, at the age of 18, died simply as a result of going to work to save money for university for the next year. I want to

pay tribute here today to Dave Ellis's father, who has made a crusade across Ontario of talking to young people, of talking to employees, to employers and to governments to change legislation. I'm

pleased to tell the House that Mr Ellis is a supporter of this bill today. He believes it's a good thing for Ontario, for working people, for working families, and for young people in Ontario if we

pass this legislation.

Currently, if convicted under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, an individual can be fined no more than $25,000 or imprisoned for no more than 12 months. A

corporation, if convicted, could be subject to a fine of $500,000. My bill, if passed by this Legislature, would increase the fine for individual conviction to up to $100,000 and would increase the

term of imprisonment to up to two years. A corporation convicted of an offence would be subject to a fine of up to $1 million. That would be doubled.

A new part of the bill for this as well is I believe there's a corporate responsibility to workplace health and safety from not only the manager, the supervisor,

the boss. I believe it has to be a corporate responsibility: the directors, officers of corporations must make it their challenge as well, must make it their daily routine to ensure that they have

a safe workplace.

If this bill is passed, it would be the first legislation in North America that would actually allow for the conviction and jailing of officers and directors of

corporations who are found responsible of neglect that causes death or injury in the workplace. We do it today in Ontario under the Environmental Protection Act for individuals who are charged with

violations under the EPA, which means, for example, that if your company discharges pollutants illegally, if your company does something illegal that hurts the environment and you're convicted, a

director could go to jail for that. An officer of a corporation could be jailed or fined. We don't have that under the health and safety act. If we think about it, we have a situation where

someone, a director or officer, who violates the environmental laws in Ontario, as serious as it is, can go to jail, but if a director or an officer of the company that they belong to violates the

health and safety act and someone dies on the job or is seriously injured, there is no provision for a fine or penalty or jail terms.

If we do this today it sends out a very clear message to Ontario as a whole that this province, this Legislature, is serious about protecting our workers, that

yes, everyone, right from the floor of the plant to the head office to the board of directors to the shareholders, has a responsibility for ensuring we have the safest workplace in North America

here in Ontario. It can be done.

We owe it to the men and women who have been killed, who have been injured, in particular to young people. I want to go back to it again. As young people today

are going into the workforce for summer jobs, many of those young people unfortunately will not go back to school in the fall because they will have been injured on the job, seriously injured, and

tragically, in some cases, killed on the job.

There's nothing more important for us in this Legislature than to be able to ensure that we do everything we can. I believe that these tougher penalties, these

tougher fines, will be a deterrent. We'll make sure that companies understand very clearly that they have a responsibility because many of these accidents are preventable. Many of these tragedies

are preventable. Many have resulted from neglect. Many have resulted from somebody simply not bothering to do something they're supposed to do to protect the persons working for them.

I believe this legislation will send out a clear message and go a long way toward making Ontario a safer place, making it safe for working families, making it

safe for people in Ontario. Men and women should be able to go to work in the morning, young people should be able to go to work in the morning, and believe that we're going to do everything we can

to protect them so they come home in one piece at the end of the day. They can go back to their family, go back to their kids, take care of their family or kids. We owe nothing less to the people

of Ontario. I hope you support that today.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm pleased to rise this morning to speak on Bill 34,

An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

I will be supporting this bill.

As Mr Agostino mentioned -- and I wasn't aware of the personal tragedy in his family -- when I was looking over the bill I thought of a number of examples that

I've seen in the course of my life of people, family members and neighbours and friends, who have been seriously injured.

I think back to when I was very, very small. I had a cousin, a fellow by the name of Clarence Dunn. He went to work at the age of about 16. He was an eager young

guy, got a job with a construction company and in his very first year, his very first summer, this piece of construction equipment, an earth mover, rolled on him. I think it was just basically his

inexperience as an operator, but it killed him instantly and it was a tragedy for our whole family.

I had another cousin, a fellow by the name of Steve Yarnold, up in Orillia. He was fortunate. Steve was working in a brickyard, or making concrete blocks, one

summer at the age of 16 and he got caught in the conveyor belt. He lost his leg as a result of that accident. It was many, many, many months of rehabilitation. He was a person who was very active

as a hockey player, in baseball, football, all those types of things, and that put an end to all that in his life. It was, again, a tragedy for the community.

I can think back to another case of a construction project that was occurring not a quarter of a mile from where I live. A fellow by the name of Gord Perryman

fell off the roof of what was to be a new marina. This is going back, as Mr Agostino said, 30 or 35 years, to that time. It killed Mr Perryman instantly. He left a wife, a family of four. I can

think of another example, of a neighbour, a fellow by the name of Brian Wood, who lost his life when a crane he was operating toppled over on him and killed him instantly.

We could go on and on. At first, you sort of forget where the tragedies were unless they affected you personally, affected your personal, immediate family, but

when you get thinking about it, there are numerous accidents across our province and our country.

I relate a lot of those to inexperience. I understand that we need to train people better. I know there's going to be a lot of prevention, particularly put into

young people as they get summer jobs.

I was at a construction site just the other day not too far from Mr Agostino's riding, at St Mark Catholic Elementary School in Stoney Creek. We did a

sod-turning for a project that is already underway for that school board. It's a beautiful new school. I was so pleased to see the types of safety features the construction company was using on

that project. All the necessary warnings were up. Although we still have accidents, I think we've come an awful long way in the prevention of accidents as well.

Our government realizes the importance of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. I think that in some cases where there's strict neglect there should be much

heavier fines. I want to say, though, that this piece of legislation goes a long way to correcting that -- maybe in some cases the same fines as the Environmental Protection Act. I'm not so sure we

can equate the two issues and go with exactly the same penalties. However, I do think Mr Agostino has some good points to be considered here. I think we have to seriously consider looking at these

points he brings up.

As well, I was interested to hear the Minister of Labour just a week ago in the House. He actually said it as though he was talking to the young people of

Ontario. I thought it was important he noted that young people, if they think they're in jeopardy with safety around the workplace, should not start the job. He directed that in a specific way

toward not only the people in this room, but toward the young people across the province.

I will be supporting this. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to say a few words.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I'm very pleased the government member is supporting this initiative. I hope all members in this

House will support this initiative because, let's face it, one life lost due to a preventable workplace accident is one too many. Certainly the individual situations that both the member from

Hamilton East and the government member have related to clearly indicate how this kind of situation can affect a family, not just for a little while but for their entire lives.

I think what people ought to understand is that this is very important. We pride ourselves on workplace safety. What this measure is basically saying to

employers out there is, "If you contravene the Occupational Health and Safety Act and you're convicted in a court, you will be fined up to $100,000 or imprisoned for up to two years." That is

really making a statement.

I hope the government will take this to heart. I hope that if this passes here today it will not go into some black hole of the committee of the whole and

disappear. The people of Ontario have to understand, as happened with the Oak Ridges moraine bill last week, that if something gets referred to the committee of the whole, the likelihood of that

private member's bill or private member's initiative being passed and put into law is nil. If the government is serious about this, then they should take this initiative and immediately change the

law, come back with a bill or give third reading to this bill and make it happen. Don't allow this situation to continue for any longer than necessary.

We can all talk beautiful language here about how we all want safe workplaces, but unless the government is actually willing to act on it and implement either

this private member's bill or a bill of their own initiating the kind of fines structure the member from Hamilton East is proposing, nothing will happen.

Let me remind the people of Ontario of some of the things the Minister of Labour has said just recently. On April 26, he stated "that there is no more ... futile

experience than reading about another preventable tragedy in the morning accident reports" and that "more needs to be done." This is a step in the right direction. Make employers more accountable

and increase the fines structure. He goes on to say that "programs, pamphlets and information can only achieve so much." Only by increasing the penalties will you make it clear to the employers out

there that it's absolutely incumbent on them to have the safest possible workplaces we can have. He goes on to say that "a consensus has emerged that workplace health and safety is far too

important to be played with as a partisan tool or bargaining chip."

That's what the Minister of Labour said, so he can now take the lead in this and take the member for Hamilton East's private member's bill and make it happen. I

am positive that if he were to indicate that we give this bill second and third reading in one session during the spring session, hopefully before we recess in June, then it will happen. There

won't be any long debates and the people of Ontario, the workers of Ontario, will feel better about it and will feel more secure that the places of work they go to in the morning will be safer.

With a significant increase in the fines structure and with the potential of imprisonment hanging over the head of the employers, they will do whatever it will take to make their workplaces

safer.

Whereas we can mouth all the proper words, and undoubtedly there will be many complimentary words stated about this bill on all sides of the House, it is the

government that can actually make it happen. I call upon the Minister of Labour: let's give this bill second and third reading as quickly as possible so that the workers of Ontario can get a

greater sense of security and safety in their workplaces.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to speak on the bill this morning. I think we have to give some background to

where we are currently with occupational health and safety. Currently a person convicted of an offence can be fined up to $25,000 or imprisoned up to 12 months or both. A "person" under the

legislation can be a worker, can be a supervisor, can be a director of a corporation, can be an officer of a corporation. All those individuals are covered currently under the legislation. A

corporation convicted of an offence can be fined up to $500,000 per offence. That's what is currently out there.

I point out that

section 32 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act requires directors and officers of a corporation to take all reasonable care to ensure that

corporations comply with the act and its regulations, as well as with any orders of a Ministry of Labour inspector, director and the minister.

I suggest that is a very high standard; in fact that's a higher standard than what is being proposed by the member opposite when he talks about directors and

officers of corporations being liable where they authorize, permit or acquiesce in an offence under the act. The standard right now is higher, "all reasonable care," and the way the act works,

they're strict liability offences.

A recent court decision held that knowledge of the workplace problem that leads to the accident is not necessary to prove that the act was violated. In other

words, the actus reus, the act that led to the legislation being violated, knowledge is not required. So this is strict liability under this legislation, and very tough legislation. I would note

that these provisions I have spoken about have been in force since 1990. I believe the Liberal government was in power at that time and brought in these changes under, I would add, a lot of

consultation. That's one thing that I don't really see here, there being very much consultation on this bill before it's even been brought in.

Now, the Ontario courts, I would note, have never levied the maximum individual fine or prison term or the maximum corporate fine. Most prosecutions are directed

at corporations, where the $500,000 limit applies, and not at individuals. In my experience, where an individual is named to be prosecuted, it's usually the supervisor that's added, very rarely the

worker.

In recent years, the total amount collected in fines has increased by 113%, from $2.4 million in 1995 to $5.1 million in the year 2000. The amount collected per

conviction is up 73%, from $8,960 in 1995 to $15,483 in the year 2000. I will say that the courts are much tougher with respect to meting out penalties today than they ever were, because there's a

higher consciousness, as the member from Simcoe North has pointed out and as the member from Hamilton has also pointed out, in terms of this being a very serious issue, because it is.

I think we should look at other jurisdictions in terms of how they deal with it, but direct comparison with other jurisdictions is difficult. I would point out

that the health and safety statutes in all other Canadian jurisdictions have significantly higher fines for individuals than Ontario; however, their maximum fine for corporations is lower than in

Ontario. Several other jurisdictions have higher maximum prison terms than Ontario: to point out a few, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, the federal government, and the Yukon Territory. However, direct

comparison with other jurisdictions is difficult because health and safety statutes in most Canadian jurisdictions do not distinguish between individual and corporate penalties; Ontario, the

Northwest Territories and Newfoundland do. And penalty provisions in several other jurisdictions allow for graduated fines for offences continuing for more than one day, higher fines for second

offences, and in some cases higher fines where the offence is linked to a serious injury or death.

We have to keep in mind that when a company comes back, with respect to having been prosecuted one time, they're like any other individual who goes before the

court. The judge knows that that individual corporation has a conviction on record and certainly the next time they are convicted that penalty they faced last time is going to be going up. But

obviously it depends on the circumstances and the seriousness of the accident when you deal with the whole situation.

I recognize and certainly support the intent of what the member opposite is trying to accomplish. I think that it needs to be thought through a lot more. I don't

think there was any real consultation with employer groups. To look at this as it is, especially with directors, I wouldn't want to lower the standard with respect to what we already have in the

legislation. But this is really dealing with penalties in terms of increased fines and jail terms. The way the act is currently working has certainly been, I think, significant in terms of

deterrence. Can we do better? We've got to try.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I stand in support of this private member's bill, and I want to thank the member from Hamilton East, Dominic

Agostino, our labour critic, for his commitment to workers and to the working families of Ontario.

Certainly this is an opportunity for the government to say, "Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa," because they have effectively destroyed the occupational health

and safety clinics across this province over the course of the last six years, clinics that were working extremely well.

In fact, I remember the formation of them quite well. I remember flying from Toronto to Sudbury with Leo Gerard, the international president of the United

Steelworkers of America, and him saying how these clinics came about. He walked into Premier David Peterson's office, during the Liberal government, and said, "David, we need this type of clinic

because this type of clinic is going to save lives," and Peterson said, "No problem. Let's do it." Leo Gerard said they came to fruition and they were supported by the Liberal government in the

late 1980s. Certainly they will be supported by the next Liberal government because we believe that workers and working families are the backbone of Ontario.

I'm very happy to say that on June 20 I will be going to the workers' memorial day service, which is hosted by the Mine-Mill and the Canadian Auto Workers.

That's a day when they recognize and remember all the workers who have lost their lives on the job, in particular the four who were killed in the rock burst. They pay massive tribute to the many

workers who endure pain, suffering and early disabilities, as well as premature death, due to harsh environmental exposure and hazardous workplace conditions. They remember their sacrifices and

their memory. Also, there is a hope at that event that the memory of these workers will instil a higher level of self-worth into all fellow workers and into government officials.

That's why I'm proud to stand in support of the member from Hamilton East and his bill, because that's what he is asking the government to do. He's asking the

government to recommit some of the resources to occupational health and safety issues, because they are imperative.

I've long championed a workplace carcinoma committee to be instituted in this province. I've been given lip service from the former Minister of Health and the

present labour minister. The new Minister of Health hasn't responded. It is imperative that these types of initiatives take place.

I also want to talk this morning because I believe education is very important in the workplace. That's why I commend my colleague Mike Gravelle on his

initiative. I also commend the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, which will be instituting a program that's called Size Does Matter. It's called the PAVE program. The PAVE program is

designed to educate the workers, the membership, about what they can do about anti-worker legislation. PAVE won't endorse one political party; they will endorse candidates who believe that

occupational health and safety is extremely important. There is strength in numbers and I believe that PAVE will in fact pave the way to a better future. It is a political action voter education

program that I believe is imperative for all workers in Ontario to become involved in.

In summation, I want to say that the member from Hamilton East, a worker for workers as our labour critic, understands from personal example the importance of

this type of legislation. I encourage this House to support it. I encourage the government to then act on it and try for once to get the message to workers that you care about them.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): New Democrats are going to support this amendment. Look at the facts. The figures are right here. Workers,

women and men in our workplaces -- injuries and illnesses are on the increase once again. Deaths, occupational fatality claims, workers' deaths as a result of the workplace, illness and accident,

are on the increase once again. It's no surprise to anybody out there in any community in any part of this province why that's the case: this government's attack on working people; this

government's attack on working women and men; this government's attack on the trade union movement; this government's wholehearted support for that global corporate agenda, that agenda that has as

its goal the reduction of workers' wages, that has as its goal the elimination of any worker control over their workplace, including their own health and safety; this government that has as its

goal service far beyond mere lip service -- true, genuine, devoted service -- to the corporate agenda of profits at any price, especially if that price is going to be paid by working women and

men.

This isn't just about statistics; it's about real people. It's about young Jeffrey Fleeton, a 17-year-old kid, just finished grade 12. On June 14 last year, he

was working with his dad's surveying company. The family's from up around the Brampton area. He was working down in the Oakville area, wearing his red vest, doing all things workers do. A

17-year-old kid was struck dead by an illegally loaded lumber truck; struck down, killed, slaughtered by that oversized load. What happens to the perpetrator of that crime that takes a 17-year-old

boy's life here in the province of Ontario? This government that talks about how it's going to make our streets safer was going to pull the charge against that trucking company in exchange for a

$2,000 charitable contribution. That's what it was going to do until it was raised here in this Legislature and this government was forced -- embarrassed and then compelled -- to instruct its

Attorney General to make a phone call down to the staff person in the Milton office and tell that doughhead that you don't trade off young workers' lives for a $2,000 charitable contribution.

I take some great offence at some obscure Tory backbencher standing up here and lecturing us about absolute liability. He has the gall to suggest there should be

more consultation with the corporate bosses. He doesn't tell this assembly that he earns a pretty substantial second living -- a little bit of a double-dipper, if you will -- by practising law

representing those same corporate bosses. I take some great offence at Tory backbenchers lecturing anybody when they are the authors of a policy that would have traded off the life of a bright,

capable, young 17-year-old kid for a crummy $2,000 contribution -- no trial, no conviction, charges withdrawn. Obscene. Were it not for us raising that in this Legislature, it would have happened,

and we're proud to have been able to bring that to the forefront.

But we also know we're not going to find out about every instance where this government is prepared to serve its corporate bosses at any cost to working women

and men in the province of Ontario. Let's talk for a moment about young Robyn Lafleur down in Niagara. I knew her; I know her mother. I have to say I knew her, because she died in November 1999.

She died when the small plant she was working in manufacturing firecrackers down in Port Robinson -- I know the turf well -- exploded. She lay under the hot, charred, burning beam of that roof,

dying while rescue workers were frustrated in their attempt to get to her. When they did get to her, it was to no avail.

I've stood with Robyn's mother every year since, Joanne Stubbins, who clutches her daughter's portrait to her chest and still cries and can still produce tears

from all those who are with her, Robyn's friends and her co-workers and the biggest, toughest trade union types you ever saw shedding tears for Robyn Lafleur, a sister whose life was robbed from

her and for whom justice is not only delayed but increasingly close to being denied because this government is in the course, it appears, of screwing up the prosecution of the charges against the

company that took Robyn's life. Judge Morrison down in Provincial Court there just last week warned the crown attorneys -- the problem is it's both federal crowns and provincial crowns -- that the

matter is becoming unduly delayed. The judge left the clear impression that if the prosecution doesn't get its act together, they may well find themselves with little to prosecute.

These are real people. And what have we got in Mike Harris's Ontario? We've got an increase in workplace deaths. We've got an increase in workplace illness and

injury. Increases -- it's 2001, not 1901. We have reduced support for workers who want to engage in some sort of control over the workplace. We have an attack on the programs that workers have been

participating in to educate them about workplace safety and workplace toxins, and it's going to get worse.

Please, don't think for a minute that 60-hour workweeks and 12-hour workdays aren't going to directly contribute to yet even further increases in workplace death

and illness. Don't think for a minute that this government's direct attack on the trade union movement and on trade unionists, their leaders and their democratic, grassroots corporate bodies, isn't

going to have a direct result once again on the numbers of workers who die in the workplace, who are injured in the workplace and who suffer diseases as a result of exposures in the workplace.

The trade union movement has been at the forefront of that struggle. That's why this government doesn't like trade unions. That's why this government and its

backbenchers, as obscure as they are, will take every opportunity to try to paint as vile a picture, as distorted and dishonest and evil a picture, as malicious and false a picture, as they can of

what the trade union movement is in this country, or even internationally, and who the people are who are activists in those trade unions who are providing leadership for those trade unions -- yes,

those very democratic collective bodies of workers, women and men, who stand in solidarity to bargain and to enjoy some better share of the wealth they create.

You see, there's more wealth being created in this province now than ever before. There's simply no denial of it. There's, similarly, no denial of the fact that

with this government's direct assistance, with the very specific fiscal policies of this government, that wealth is increasingly concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people; and

increasingly in the hands of people who don't even reside in Ontario, never mind Canada.

The problem isn't just the level of fines. We're going to support the bill. We're going to support the amendments. The fines should be increased because judges

perpetually never give the maximum fine. They're guided by what the maximum fine is, and if they go halfway up, to increase the fines is going to give judges a little more leeway in terms of the

amount of fines they can impose. But the reality is that people should be going to jail. And I'm not talking about supervisors and managers; I'm talking about corporate directors. If you really

want to put some teeth into legislation that's going to make workplaces safer for workers, you start sending corporate directors, those guys in their $1,000 or $1,500 pinstripe suits, with their

little Gucci shoes and their Montblanc pens, to jail. Let them do some hard time.

The other reality is that the most effective deterrent when it comes to effecting and facilitating compliance with occupational health and safety legislation is

enforcement. The likelihood of being caught -- enforcement. Not the kind of enforcement that Mike Harris's Attorney General -- what's his name, a Mr Young -- would engage in. Mr Young was prepared

to withdraw the charge against the corporate owner of a truck that took the life of a 17-year-old boy and then let that same corporate body enjoy a tax break, because it would give $2,000 donation

to a charity and get the tax receipt. Hell, the company might have come out ahead and that boy would still be dead.

Those same policies are the ones that, with a wink and a nod and the occasional nudge, and perhaps the less-than-infrequent exchange, however sotto voce, on the

golf course -- do you understand where I'm coming from? Corporate owners are getting the message from this government that they, the corporate bosses, can just run roughshod over workers' health

and safety rights. We know that the lowest-paid workers in this province, the ones working for minimum wage, and many of them because of bosses who are going to try to weave and bob their way

through weakened Employment Standards Act legislation, those lowest-paid workers, the poorest workers in this province, those making $6.85 an hour, are given short shrift by this government. This

government won't even consider the most modest of wage increases for the poorest workers in this province, and the number of those poorest workers is increasing daily as more and more jobs are

being transferred -- metamorphosized -- from value production manufacturing jobs down to the service sector, minimum-wage jobs, the Tim Hortons, the McDonald's, the Burger Kings, what have you. The

number of workers who are working poor in this province has increased dramatically during the six years that Mike Harris and the Tories have been at the helm here at Queen's Park.

It's about enforcement. As long as this government is going to turn a blind eye to violations, good grief, the highest fines in the world aren't going to be a

deterrent, because the likelihood of getting caught simply ain't there. The bottom line is that the New Democrats in Parliament, with the direct aid of the United Steelworkers union here in this

country, have been fighting -- and I encourage people who are inclined to support this bill today to join Alexa McDonough and federal New Democrats in their campaign in Ottawa -- to have health and

safety violations as a part of the Criminal Code of Canada. If you're really serious about protecting workers -- women and men, our sisters and brothers, our parents, our kids -- if you're really

serious about it and you really want to make it happen, by God, you make it a criminal offence for corporations -- I don't care where their head office is -- to murder workers or to make them sick

or to take their futures away from them or to poison them, as is happening to workers daily, hundreds of workers annually here in this province. They're being poisoned. Thousands are succumbing to

workplace accident and illness. Hundreds die on an annual basis. In the year 2001, the numbers are getting higher.

This government could care less about working women and men. This government's demonstrated that on a daily basis, and when its obscure little backbenchers

stand up here today and try to weave and bob their way through this debate, they become oh so transparent. It's not just disdain for workers, it's an actual dislike, from some of them a hatred, for

working women and men, rolling us back into the previous century.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill 34. The member for Hamilton East has brought this in. To let him know,

I'm supporting this particular bill. I am getting just a little nervous when I'm supporting a Liberal's bill. Last evening I was complimented by a Liberal and even a bit of applause came from the

Liberal side when I spoke, so I'm beginning to think maybe I'm doing something wrong here.

This is indeed a non-partisan bill, brought forward by the member for Hamilton East in a non-partisan way. It's all about, as I see it, the change of

behaviour. Sometimes we can do it with a carrot; sometimes we can do it with a stick. In the case of penalties, of course, we're talking about doing it with a stick, but I'd like to think that this

is about prevention, not necessarily about the fines or the jail terms that are levied later on. The fact that they can be to that extreme will make employers, other workers, directors and

corporations be more safety-conscious when they're faced with various costs to put up something like the member mentioned, a wooden barrier around an elevator shaft. I had heard that his father had

been injured in an accident something like that. He presented that very, very well here this morning, talking about a non-protected elevator shaft and how it changed their family. Not having walked

in his shoes, I can't really fully appreciate that, but I can have some understanding of the difficulties the family must have had as a result of that particular accident.

It would strike me that these penalties are realistic. I understand that some 10 years ago they were debated, with a lot of consultation. I appreciate the

comment made about consultation. I hope the member would want that kind of consultation to occur.

I think it's interesting just to look at some of the numbers. I heard the member for Niagara Centre going on and on. I look at the figures, and they have

continued to rise. I have figures from 1997 to 1999 on injury and illness. It's not a marked increase but a steady increase. Really, it should be going down, and it's unfortunate it is climbing.

When I look at the number of deaths, I think it's rather interesting to see how it actually climbed very significantly through the early 1990s. The first real drop was in 1996, a further drop in

1997, and then we see it starting to work its way back up again. I would dearly like to see that trend reversing. I think by setting penalties to make employers, other workers, and boards of

directors sit up and take notice, that kind of behaviour will change.

I just see a bit of a relationship between this bill and the one that I'll be bringing in after 11 o'clock. That's all about changing the behaviour of how

people act.

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): I want to congratulate the member from Hamilton East for bringing in this bill that's going to bring in

some penalties for individuals and corporations that contravene the act, and make the directors and officers of the corporation liable.

I believe this bill is not about blame as much as it is about responsibility. I don't agree with all of the comments of the member from Niagara Centre. You

don't want to vilify corporations, but corporations have a responsibility. This type of bill, in my view, ensures that those who have decision-making powers in corporations ensure that the highest

level of safety is in the workplace under their direction.

Some 40% of chemicals produced in Canada are produced in Sarnia-Lambton. We have a tremendous history of ill effects on workers throughout the last 50 years. I

would suggest that we have a lot to learn from not only the incidents there but the incidents that were so eloquently portrayed by the member for Hamilton East about his own father. I think it's

important that we learn and try to change the system so that we ensure that responsibility is taken by those people who actually make the decisions. After all, it is at that level that we are going

to ensure that the environment of the workplace has the best safety regulations. We can put all the rules in place that we want, but if there isn't a consequence to the breaking of those rules,

unfortunately human nature is such that they will cut corners when they have to.

I have to say that I've had various meetings with corporations locally. I understand that, for the most part, there are good corporate citizens who understand

that part of their responsibility is to ensure that their workers have the safest environment to work in. It's encouraging for me to note that the good corporate citizens also say that sometimes

there isn't enough of a hammer for those people who, because of their moral obligations, aren't abiding and aren't making their workplace safe.

We had a huge benzene spill in Sarnia about six months ago, a million litres of benzene. Workers had to work in that, and there were a lot of people exposed to

this. I'm always concerned when you understand that this is a cancer-causing substance. Yet the company consistently wants to do, if you want to call it, damage control. I believe we have to come

to a time where the corporations, the community and political leaders have to work together to make sure we have the safest workplace, because it's too high a price for the company to pay and it's

too high a price for the community to pay. I believe the political will has to be there to ensure that the rules of occupational safety and health have consequences that come with them.

I have to say that I believe the imbalance of the Conservative government is that it has allowed all of this self-policing to be part and parcel of their

ideology. I believe that does not help when you have corporate citizens who don't take responsibility for their workers in the workplace. I know that we are certainly committed to ensuring that we

do have liability of the directors and officers who are not meeting their responsibility.

Again, this bill is not about blame, but it is about ensuring responsibility.

The Deputy Speaker: In response, the member for Hamilton East.

Mr Agostino: I want to thank my colleagues on all sides of the House who have spoken. I appreciate their kind support and their kind words

toward the bill. My colleague from St Paul's, Michael Bryant, has worked with me on this issue, and many of his conscientious constituents from St Paul's and cases brought to my attention have

helped bring this together.

I clearly want to work with the government on this. If there are changes to be made or parts of the bill that need to be somewhat fixed, I extend an offer to

the Minister of Labour, to members of the government side that are interested in this: I want to work with you. I want to put together the best piece of legislation and protect workers across

Ontario. We owe it to every single worker today in the workforce, we owe it to every single woman and man that has been killed or injured in the workplace. But let me point out to you, Mr Speaker,

we owe it most of all to those young people, the pages who are sitting in front of you. Those young men and women will be out in the workforce in the next few years as summer students, earning a

few extra dollars to go to school.

Let me remind this House again that we owe it to the memory of Dave Ellis, an 18-year-old killed on the job, trying to make money to go to school in the fall.

We owe it to the memory of 17-year-old Jeffrey Fleeton, killed on the job earning money to go back to school. Those young people were 18, 17.

I want to point something out. In the west members' gallery my co-op student is here: Sean Neuman. Sean is 18 years old. He is the age of those two young

people I just mentioned, the age of his friends. That puts, I believe, a real human face -- those young folks sitting in front of us, the young man sitting in the west members' gallery -- on why

this is important. It is important for people in the workforce today, for everyone. As we go into the summer, as we start summer employment, young people are going to be out there. We owe this

protection to young Ontarians every single day of the week.

The Deputy Speaker: This completes the time allocated for debate on this matter. I will place the question to decide this matter at 12

noon.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(OUTSIDE RIDERS), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(PASSAGERS À L'EXTÉRIEUR

D'UN VÉHICULE)

Mr Galt moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 33,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit persons from riding on the outside of a motor vehicle / Projet de loi 33, Loi modifiant le Code de

la route pour interdire à des personnes de circuler à l'extérieur d'un véhicule automobile.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member has up to 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): First, I'd like to introduce the Lawrence family and the Mackey family, parents of Jason and Bartley, who were

killed this past summer in a traffic accident. Please welcome them.

I certainly appreciate them being with us. They've been a driving force behind this legislation. I commend them on their public-spiritedness, their desire to

change a small part of our world, to make it a safer place for our young people, or for that matter, anyone who's going to ride on the outside of a vehicle.

This bill is similar to the previous one in that it is trying to change the behaviour and the actions of people and how they deal with vehicles and ride on

them.

They know only too well the pain of losing a child so tragically. I've had the experience of the phone ringing some four times, generally in the middle of the

night. It was the police on the other end. One of our daughters had been in an accident. It wasn't a death, but I had just a little feeling of what they must have gone through when they had the

phone call or the arrival of the policemen at their door. How many times have we seen our own teenagers and others just like them in a similar circumstance, riding in the box of a half-ton truck?

Certainly this legislation can prevent similar deaths by changing that kind of behaviour.

We are not the first in Canada to put forth a law to prevent people from riding on the outside of vehicles. This is in place in several other jurisdictions

across Canada; at least five have this type of legislation to prevent outside riders on vehicles. We've reviewed that legislation. We find that a simple change to our own transportation act would

accommodate and prevent people -- at least prevent them legally -- from riding on the outside of a vehicle. In general, it prohibits anyone from riding in the cargo bed of a pickup truck or on the

outside of a vehicle not designed for outside riders.

Of course motorcycles and fire trucks would be exempt. We are also looking at exemptions for people engaged in agricultural work, horticultural work, road

construction and municipal work. The initial suggestion we have in the bill -- we are looking at some flexibility as we move into hearings -- is that we've put in the bill that it's provided that

the vehicle is not travelling over 60 kilometres per hour when involved in that kind of work and has people in the box of a truck. I'm very flexible when we go to committee with this as to what

that speed should be.

We should also be looking at, what about parade vehicles? Certainly that is a very different kind of speed. I suggest probably that could be dealt with in

regulations. Nonetheless the bill gives the Lieutenant Governor the legal right to regulation to make other exemptions as appropriate.

As mentioned, this is a non-partisan bill. We all share the concerns that the presence of Bart's and Jay's parents signifies here today. This bill seems to

have broad support here in the Legislature. I'm getting an awful lot of support in my own riding as well. Just to name some from whom I'm getting support: the Minister of Transportation, the

Honourable Brad Clark; his parliamentary assistant, Julia Munro; David Leonhardt of the Canadian Automobile Association; and John Svensson from the Driving School Association of Ontario.

We've received absolutely overwhelming support in the local press at home -- I don't normally get this kind of supportive press -- and a lot of positive

editorials. All the articles are very positive on this bill, and I've received almost nil negative concerns about it. Basically I've already mentioned that some people think 60 kilometres per hour

for agriculture and construction work, that kind of thing, is maybe too fast. We can certainly have a look at that. Also, in Hamilton township, there's a young man, a grade 7 student at Dale Road

public school, who on his own steam and of his own accord took up a petition in favour of this type of legislation shortly after the accident. This too is an inspiration.

More compelling still is this letter written to me by the girlfriend of one of the young men. She should become a writer.

"Recently I gave a speech to my fellow classmates on the danger of riding in the back of a pickup truck. In the opening of my speech, I asked my audience a

couple of general questions regarding the topic. In my first question, I asked them to raise their hands if they thought it was illegal to ride in a moving vehicle without a seat belt. The entire

audience raised their hand in agreement. In my second question, I asked them to raise their hands if they thought it was illegal to ride in the back of a pickup truck. The entire class sat with a

puzzled look on their faces and half the class raised their hands with an unsure glance to the front of the class, where I was speaking.

"In disbelief of the lack of awareness surrounding this issue, I continued on with my speech presenting to them the dangers of riding in the back of a truck

and the repercussions that can follow. Since I was the 15th speaker of the day, the attention span of the class was running thin. But in the last few minutes of my presentation I shared my personal

story with my class, which immediately changed their level of interest. As I was speaking, their eyes were wide with interest in my topic. I asked my class who had ridden in the back of a pickup

truck before. Nearly the entire class raised their hands. I lowered my voice and pleaded to my classmates, `After I share my tragic experience to you, I pray no one in this class will ever ride in

the back of a truck ever again.'

"On July 30, 2000, my world came crashing down when my boyfriend, Jason Lawrence was instantly killed when he was ejected from the back of a pickup truck.

Jason and I lived an incredible life together and had planned every minute of our future together. Little did I know on July 29, as I sat waiting for him to get home, he would never return. The

accident also involved two other friends riding in the back of the truck, Bartley Mackey, who was also killed instantly and Robert Toddish, who suffered serious head injuries.

"I did not share this story with my class or write this letter for sympathy, but simply because I feel this issue needs to be addressed immediately. After

receiving the only perfect mark in my class for my presentation, and noticing the level of interest I obtained after I concluded my speech, I found comfort in believing I had changed the beliefs of

so many impressionable people. Simply because I find it so hard to justify why it is illegal to ride in a closed vehicle without restraint, but it is legal to ride in an open vehicle without any

restraint. I cannot think of a single logical reason why this has never become a law.

"I am hoping that this letter may make even a few people sit back and realize that something needs to be done to prevent anything similar to this from

happening in the future. I have witnessed the horrible grief that has surrounded all the friends and family of these young men. A law surrounding riding in the back of a truck can prevent accidents

like this in the future, and the pain and grief that follows tragedies. In conclusion, please take my words seriously and make it illegal to ride in the back of a truck. This law will make anyone

who chooses to ride in the back of a truck to think twice about their decisions, because laws are made for reasons. I truly believe that my story is reason enough."

That was signed by Jennifer Shepherd.

In conclusion, I believe that this is indeed good legislation and it's, you might say, emotional legislation, particularly from this letter. It's been said

that of all the duties of government its most important responsibility is to keep its citizens safe, and we're certainly discussing that considerably this morning with both bills. This particular

bill, if enacted and passed, will certainly change that.

Motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death among our young people, and with some of the aggressive driving we're seeing today, I don't think

there's any question that's increasing. Anything that we can do about aggressive driving or people riding in the back of half-ton trucks would certainly help. To help prevent these deaths we

require seat belts within the protection of a cab, but to allow people to ride unrestrained on the outside is indeed a contradiction. Such a simple precaution, but one that is so obviously needed,

needs to be publicized and needs to be enforced.

On behalf of our young people, on behalf of a certain young man and all his supporters in Hamilton township, on behalf of the girlfriend, the Mackeys and the

Lawrences, and especially on behalf of their sons, Bart and Jay, I ask you to support this legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): First of all, let me express, on behalf of all my Liberal colleagues, our sincere condolences to the family

members who are here with us today and to your extended family.

This bill has a bit of a history. The member opposite introduced a similar bill in December 2000. In this place we've come to lately understand that we don't

sit very often. We came back to this House a month later than normal. The government, when it made its decisions, could have decided to keep this bill alive last December. The government chose not

to do that. The member opposite had to go through the lottery that we have here that provides each member with an opportunity to bring a bill forward. He's very fortunate that his is very early in

the legislative calendar. Others of us must wait until fall, or perhaps wait and never have our bills heard in this place. So we came back late and the government didn't hold this bill over from

last year. But now we are at this point. I wonder if the government supports the bill, in the fact that it didn't hold this very worthwhile piece of legislation and amendment to the Highway Traffic

Act over and had the member opposite go into another lottery situation which would have only delayed passage of the bill. The member, as I say, is very fortunate.

I too have had a bill that has had a history in this place in terms of protecting the youth of our province, an amendment to the Highway Traffic Act. I brought

it to this House in the memory of Ryan Marcuzzi, the 16-year-old daughter of Colleen and Larry Marcuzzi, and as well I had supporters like Ginny and Ed Loxton who also lost a child because someone

passed a school bus illegally. I introduced legislation into this House, backed by a petition with 30,000 names on it encouraging me to do so, support from police, school bus drivers, school bus

operators, municipalities, school boards, teachers, parents and students. I continue to get letters on this piece of legislation that I first introduced in 1996. I have been trying to introduce a

bill that would provide for vehicle liability and the opportunity to have a real conviction mechanism for people who pass school buses when the red lights are flashing and young people are getting

on or off that bus. Since 1996 I have been working with a host of people trying to impress upon this government to pass that legislation.

Yes, in November 1996 the bill received the unanimous support of this House and was referred to the standing committee on resources development. For over a

year we tried to get that bill into the committee and it didn't happen. The government held that bill back. They stalled. They made all manner of excuses. Unfortunately, just as the member

opposite's bill died in December 2000, that Bill 78 died as well.

In memory of Ryan Marcuzzi and other children who have died in this province, some 13 in the last 13 years, and on behalf of the 810,000 children who ride

school buses every day, and on behalf of the bus drivers who drive 16,000 buses in this province, I reintroduced the bill. I introduced it again, a third time, and I introduced it a fourth time. On

November 16, 2000, the bill received second reading in this House. It was referred to the committee of the whole. We who work in this place know that the opportunity for that bill to ever be heard

in the committee of the whole is highly unlikely. For the fourth time, the government let that bill die once again.

I hope the member opposite has a better opportunity. He says he wants his bill to go into committee. I welcome that opportunity. He wants to discuss other

issues within the bill and expand on them. We would welcome that. I hope the member opposite has much more success at protecting the lives of people who ride in the back of vehicles, and he

specifically mentioned pickup trucks, than I have had trying to protect children who far too often are subjected to people who pass buses illegally when the red lights are flashing.

Bus drivers have told me that this can happen two, three, four times a week. I have had television stations send me film of people passing school buses when

the red lights are flashing -- not just one car, which might be dangerous enough, but the second car and the third car. I've had parents send me film they have taken of automobiles and all manner

of transportation, trucks etc, passing school buses when the red lights are flashing. It happens far too often and we do not have a conviction mechanism.

The government says they are opposed to vehicle liability. However, the government allows for cameras to take pictures of vehicles on the 407 so that a private

operator can collect money. I have here a bill with vehicle liability provided by an eyewitness account, that being the school bus driver, who will state the licence number and other identifying

marks of a vehicle if need be, and the government won't accept that. But they will allow for vehicle liability to collect money on a toll road.

Furthermore, the government has allowed for the use of red light cameras. If it's all right for red light cameras, to use vehicle liability in that instance,

why is it wrong to have someone's eyewitness account not be provided for, with the four bills I've introduced, all similar? I don't understand it. The public doesn't understand it. The parents

don't understand it. Colleen and Larry Marcuzzi don't understand it. Ginny and Ed Loxton don't understand it. The 30,000 people who signed that petition and the letters I continue to get, since

1996, don't understand the government's view either.

I hope the member opposite has more success at going through the committee stages, is not put off for a year trying to get his bill into committee, to then

subsequently see it die. Having the bill die on the order paper four times, but undaunted, I will bring the bill back to this House again.

I agree with the member opposite who mentioned the 60 kilometres per hour within his bill. I think we should look at that. That's what committees are for, to

discuss. I have had some conversations with others who rather question why 60 kilometres per hour, but we can discuss that in committee, just as the government, which had questions about my bill,

could have discussed it in committee, but they won't let it go there. Oh yes, they said committee of the whole. As I stated, we know that is unlikely to ever happen in this House. So we'll try

again. We will be persistent in order to protect the 810,000 children who ride school buses daily, who all too frequently see careless motorists pass by.

Currently, the bus driver must identify the person driving, physically identify them. First of all, the bus driver's responsibility is to the children and

watching them.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I hate to do this in private members' business. There is a standing

order that requires us to speak to the bill, the matter before us, and this member, unfortunately, has wasted a lot of his own time talking about his own previous bill. Bus safety is a very

important subject but not when we're discussing trucks.

The Deputy Speaker: As members would know, they have to direct their comments to the legislation before us. Members should also know that in

private members' hour there is a relatively large amount of latitude, given that these speeches are timed. Member for Chatham-Kent Essex.

Mr Hoy: Well, I'm sorry if this school bus bill annoys the government members opposite.

What I have characterized here for you is how private members' bills can be halted in this House. Four times, the government opposite has halted this bill from

even going to the committee. You wouldn't allow it to go to the committee for over a year. I tried to get that bill into committee -- all manner of excuses from the government. All manner of --

Hon Helen Johns (Minister without Portfolio [Health and Long-Term Care]): Are you in favour of this bill or not?

Mr Hoy: I would welcome the opportunity, as the member has asked, that his bill be referred to the committee. I agree with that. But why we

have this notion that other bills to protect people with amendments to the Highway Traffic Act cannot be heard -- since 1996 to this date thus far -- is a question I put before the Legislature.

But certainly we would welcome the opportunity to have this bill from the member opposite to go to committee and I welcome the opportunity to speak about it at

that time.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I want to say, right from the beginning, that our caucus, the NDP caucus, will be supporting this

legislation. We believe it's a step in the right direction. We believe that yes, the bill needs to go to committee. I hope the government doesn't kill the bill's opportunity to get to committee

because there are a couple of technical issues, as the member well knows, that need to be dealt with, I believe, at the committee level. I know in discussions I've had with people within the

Canadian Automobile Association and others, there are a few concerns around speed and other issues that we have to deal with. Where to do that is not particularly in this debate but at the

committee level.

So I want to say right at the beginning we support the bill. New Democrats will vote in favour. We will do what we can to assist the member to get this bill

through the committee process so that we're able to deal with the issue, and then hopefully bring the bill back to third reading, give it final assent before we're out of here this spring so that

this bill actually can become law.

However, I'm not very optimistic that that's going happen, not because the member opposite doesn't want it to happen. We know the member and I are on opposite

sides of a number of issues. We have ideologies that are somewhat different, I guess we would say. But on this particular issue -- as most members know, as we present bills at private members'

hour, these are non-partisan issues. These are up and down issues. This is about safety, this is about protecting lives, and there's no ideology when it comes to those issues. It's a question of

technicalities only.

But I'm not optimistic that the bill is going to get far. Far too often, I think we need to understand, not only us as members but for those of you watching --

private members' hour is probably one of the better places where members are able to bring bills to be discussed in this Legislature, issues that they feel strongly about as members or issues that

their constituents feel strongly about and need to have debated and passed into law. Far too often, in 99% of cases, members bring together really good bills that are in my view up and down,

non-partisan. They're really about doing good things in our communities or good things for Ontario from all sides of the House. But unfortunately, because of the system of democratic government

that we have in our British parliamentary system, the bills don't get anywhere. At the end of the day, if the government of the day -- and I don't care if it's Conservative, Liberal or New

Democrat; we're all guilty of this, every party -- says, "I have more important business to tend to. I want to deal with my government business," they don't give opportunity for private members'

bills to work their way through the legislative process. This is not something that's just true of the Conservative government today. This was true of Liberals under David Peterson and certainly

was true under Bob Rae when I was a member of that government.

If I've learned one thing coming through the legislative process, being a member now for my third term, it is that this system does not work. Our system of

British parliamentary democracy, in my view, serves the person in the Premier's office and hardly anybody else. I don't care if it's Bob Rae, Mike Harris or David Peterson -- they're all equally

guilty. Because all of the power is concentrated in their hands, they get to decide everything. Backbenchers in the government have a hard time trying to pass their bills through the House, as we

will find with Mr Galt's bill. Opposition members equally have the same problem because the government of the day says, through the Premier's office, "Here are our priorities. What matters are our

priorities as the Premier of Ontario and to heck with anybody else in this Legislature. It don't matter because, na, na, na, na, na, I've got more seats than you."

It's a terrible disservice to the public of Ontario, and I think it's a terrible disservice, quite frankly, to democracy. That's why as a member you will see

me stand up in this House more often than not and start talking about how we need to reform our parliamentary system. It's a system that was based on a principle of what democracy was seen as 300

years ago when it was brought to be in England. It was basically designed with what were the issues of those days and what they thought might work in a British parliamentary system that had to do

with how we pass legislation through the House.

But in a modern democracy, in a new millennium, in the year 2001, you would think we would have evolved our system to the point that a member can walk into the

House, as Mr Galt did today, introduce a bill that's important to him, important to his constituency and certainly important to the people the bill affects, and we would at least want as citizens

of this province the ability to know that Mr Galt's bill, the member from Northumberland's bill, would be able to get some kind of passage through this House, so that at the end of the day we can

get some justice for people who have unfortunately died in these kinds of situations and, more importantly, try to save lives in the future. But because of our British parliamentary system the

majority government of the day will say, "No, we're dealing with government business and to heck with all those other private members' bills."

As a case in point, the member from Northumberland himself, in the previous session, brought to this House Bill 173, which got second reading approval at

private members' hour. It was supported by all parties. Why would a bill such as this, that was supported by all parties, not have gotten speedy passage through the House and the committee process?

Because this system stinks, quite bluntly. Our democratic system is not well. It's broken and it needs to be fixed. I say what we need to do as parliamentarians on all sides of the House is to

start talking to the citizens of this province about how we reform our parliamentary democracy so that when they look in this chamber, they have a little bit more confidence that, first, when they

look inside they see themselves and, more importantly, they have confidence that the work we do in this Legislature at the end is going to be able to at least benefit them as citizens of this

province and not just the government. Again, it's not just New Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals -- we're all guilty -- but I say we need to undergo a very rude awakening in this province when

it comes to reforming our democracy.

I would suggest, by example, that we could look at what has happened in other parliamentary democracies around the world. What's wrong with looking at what

happens, for example, in a system of proportional representation? Under a PR system, what's called proportional representation, you have an election, just as we have now. You can design a system

that's made for Ontario which respects that we should have members in constituencies, which respects that we have some stability in the system, so that we know we don't have what people call an

Italian pizza-type Parliament where governments are overthrown every six months, that we can actually design a system that says that if Mike Harris in the last election got 44% or 45% of the vote,

his number of seats in the House should be no more than that percentage. At least in that way the government's got to work with the other two parties in order to pass legislation through the

House.

What that means to you who are sitting in the gallery wanting this bill to pass is that we would actually be able to do that because Mr Harris would have to

listen to Mr Galt. He would have some power inside in his own caucus because Harris, in wanting to pass his legislation, would say, "Doug, I need your support," and Doug would say, "Mike, if you

want my support, help me with my bill," and we on this side of the House would be able to do the same. Yes, the system might be a little bit slower when it comes to debating bills, but why should

we be passing bills in this House in three days' time without proper debate, without proper scrutiny by the public, so that in the end the government can get its way? Again, I don't care who the

Premier is -- we're all guilty.

I say we need to engage in a process of democratic reform in this province where we say what the stated principles are that we want. We want stability in our

government, we want to make sure the government reflects us as citizens and that when they look inside this Parliament they've got some confidence. We're big enough in Ontario, intelligent enough

and certainly have a strong enough tradition of democracy that we can undertake a process of looking at how we could move our system past the system we've got now, called "first past the post," and

look at a PR system.

I would not argue that we follow a German model. I would not argue that we follow an Italian, New Zealand or Israeli model. I think those work or don't work

for their particular situation. Ontario has to design its own. I think some of the principles would be that we need to elect members who represent constituencies. We need to make sure there's

proportionality in the House. If the New Democrats, in 1990, got 38% of the vote, we should have had no more than 38% of the seats in the House. If Conservatives got 45% in the last election,

Conservatives should have no more than 45% of the seats in the House. At least in that way there's a taking into account of the various points of view and there has to be some work and some

co-operation between the parties in this House.

At least that way the citizen would feel their vote counts. If they vote in Northumberland, or they vote in Timmins-James Bay, and, whoever they vote for, be

it a Conservative, a New Democrat or a Liberal, win or lose, as far as whether your member is elected, at least you know your vote counted to get the proportion of members in the House of the party

you believe would do the best job. That way at least we'd be able to get into having some rational debate around this place about how we move things through the House.

I'll give you a very good example. There's a huge debate now that's happening in this Legislature around funding private schools. The government is in favour

of it. I understand that. I have no argument with the government's belief. They believe in that. It's their right as individuals and their right as a party to propose whatever, but they got 45% of

the seats in this House and they're going to come now and they're going to totally change public education in this House by virtue of 45% of the seats.

That, to me, in a democracy is preposterous. Under a PR system there would be at least a taking into account of the various views. The Liberals would have to

make up their minds which side of the issue they're on because one day they support and the next day they don't. At least we'd be able to firm them up on their position. We know where New Democrats

are coming from: we're opposing it. At least we're consistent on that. But at the end of the day there would have to be at least a majority of members in this House who agree that we should or

should not fund private education by way of a voucher system. But now, because the government got 45% of the vote in the last general election and, because of "first past the post," has over 60% of

the seats, they can do what they want and there's nothing you can do, Mr and Mrs Public. You can't talk to your member from Northumberland. He's got to do what his government wants. I was a member

of the government; I know how it works. I've been on both sides of the House.

We need to look at democratic reform so that when citizens go to their MPPs and say, "I have an issue that's important and I want that issue debated in the

Legislature," when their MPP says, "Yes, I will be the champion," as Mr Galt has done, rightfully so -- and I agree with him on this issue; he's 100% right and I want his bill to pass -- at least

the citizens from Northumberland, when they look at their MPP, would say, "I know if my member champions my issue, it really does mean something. It means in the end there's a chance the bill will

pass." You know what? That means democracy might work for a change, because it certainly doesn't work in this.

The government on the other side will argue against me because they're the majority government today. It's to their benefit not to have a PR system and to have

"first past the post." Do you know what? That's how most governments will argue. I'm stating right at the outset that we need to have this debate and that it has to be done, in my view, in such a

way that the decision is not made by the politicians, but that the decision is made by you. "Do you believe the current system works, yes or no?" If the answer is no, then let's engage in a process

on how we change it. Do you know what? Put that decision in the hands of the public, not in the hands of the politicians, because quite frankly most of us can't be trusted on this issue by way of

history in this place.

As we go through this debate, I think what would come out would be interesting. But I'm fairly certain that if we're able, as a Legislature, to deal with an

all-party committee where the public would have some say and an ability to have some confidence in what we're doing, they would at least feel, at the end of the day, that when we change the system

they're better able to say, "When I look at the Legislature, I feel a little bit more respect than I do now, because I know the system is at least fairer and is a system that works for me as a

citizen."

As it is now, the only people this system serves are in the Premier's office. Do you know what, government backbenchers? You're not going to stand up and agree

with me publicly, but you know in your hearts, minds and souls that I'm right. This system does not work. It works for Mike, it worked for Bob and it worked for David before that, and it will look

for whoever the next majority government is, but it certainly doesn't work for government backbenchers. I would argue that it doesn't even work for certain cabinet ministers, as we well know. It

certainly doesn't work for the opposition. More importantly, it doesn't work for the public.

I say to the member for Northumberland, we as New Democrats will support your bill. We will vote in favour. We believe your bill should go to committee because

there are a couple of technical issues that need to be dealt with. I spoke to the member earlier and I think he acknowledges that. But I would certainly hope we don't end up again where we were not

too long ago, when the member introduced Bill 173 in this House and because the government prorogued the House, his bill died. I hope we don't we end up back in the same spot.

I say to the government across the way and I say to the opposition here today, as parliamentarians, let's undertake to at least have a discussion in this place

about how we start a process of democratic renewal, so that when people look at this Legislature they have a little bit more confidence about their elected representatives and they look at this

Legislature with at least the confidence of knowing it represents them and that, at the end, their vote counts, because now it doesn't.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): I would like to speak to the bill. This bill was introduced by Mr Galt, the member for

Northumberland. The intent of the bill seems to be to deal with the issue of the carrying of passengers in the back of pickup trucks. I must confess that I just assumed that was the law, and it's

not the law. It's the law in a number of other provinces, but it's not the law in this province. So I congratulate him for bringing forward what to me is a very obvious issue. I cannot believe that

this House will not give unanimous consent to the bill and that it will not have speedy carriage through the House, although I believe the bill should go to committee. There are several concerns I

have with the bill and I have spoken to the member for Northumberland about them.

When you think about what already exists, with

section 106 of the Highway Traffic Act, which deals with seat belts, you can't even take a child home from the

hospital because they won't let the child out of the hospital unless they're satisfied that child is going to be in a safety device, and yet we allow people to ride in the back of vehicles.

The passage of the bill is long overdue. There has been reference to tragic situations around this province. It's high time this issue became law in of

Ontario. As I have indicated, several other provinces already have similar legislation. It could be argued of course that the charge of careless driving could be levied against someone who is

allowing passengers to ride in the back of a truck, but that may be a matter for the courts and I certainly wouldn't want to hang my hat on that issue. Careless driving is where a truck is being

driven "without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway." That's careless driving, the wording in the act, but it may not apply.

There are other provinces that deal with it. I think there are five of them. Alberta, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Quebec deal with it and

have legislation with respect to this provision that's being suggested by Mr Galt. I would hope the committee would take those bills and look at them, because there are good provisions in those

that could be used with respect to the province of Ontario.

I have a couple of questions that we don't have time today to debate, but a there are couple of issues that I raise because I would hope this bill would carry

and that when it reached the committee -- I don't know what "outside a motor vehicle" means, for example. I don't know whether "motor vehicle" is the complete part. I don't know what the wording of

that means. There are other questions; for example, the issue of trucks or vehicles that are used in parades. There's a whole list of exclusions in Mr Galt's bill and I would hope that that may be

included as an exclusion in the bill, that under certain circumstances that could be an exclusion as well, although he has a subsection that orders in council could be made for it and perhaps it

could be put forward there. I'd like to hear more rationale with respect to that.

The other provinces specifically deal with that. For example, Alberta has an exclusion that says that "vehicles forming part of an entertainment exhibition

that has been approved by the council of the municipality in which it is taking place" -- they have that as a specific exclusion. The province of New Brunswick has a similar specific exclusion. It

may be that that exclusion should be in this bill, but that's an issue that could be dealt with in committee.

New Brunswick also has a provision that goes into a little bit more of an elaboration with respect to construction. He mentions it as one of his exclusions, "A

motor vehicle engaged in highway construction or maintenance." New Brunswick talks about where the passenger is being transported to or from a work site. There may be other items, exclusions, that

need to be discussed or have representation from others.

There is the bill in Nova Scotia, which also has some provisions I think could be used in the Ontario bill.

In

summary, I wholeheartedly support the bill and will be voting in favour of it. I encourage all members of the House to do that, and I hope it goes to

committee where we can deal with the matter further.

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): It's certainly a pleasure to rise in support of Dr Galt's bill. As I think most members know, road safety is a

critical issue for this province and for the Ministry of Transportation. We are very much in support of any measure that is going to make and increase road safety. I certainly would want to suggest

support for this bill.

When you look at the issue here, what we're talking about is the fact that the current Highway Traffic Act does not specifically prohibit the transport of

people in the back of pickups. Clearly over the years there has been an increasing public awareness of the dangers this represents, an increasing public awareness of the safety benefits of seat

belts, and certainly with young children, proper seating in a car, in a vehicle. The fact that this bill would eliminate the danger of the unrestrained passenger in the back of a pickup truck is

certainly a step forward.

There's a whole body of research that would support this bill. The fact is that people are 25 times more likely to be ejected riding in the cargo area of a

vehicle than they would be in the cab. We also certainly have many other jurisdictions which have made this particularly important step. There are provinces across the country that have done this

and also in the US.

Particularly vulnerable are young people in this area, where there is the temptation to gather a group of friends that exceeds the number of seat belts, so it

is to that group that we particularly direct the attention of this legislation. It is also demonstrated by the research done that it is young people who are more likely to be involved in fatalities

with regard to people travelling in truck beds.

It is really an important step in the continuation of making sure that our roads are the safest in the country. We need to ensure that this bill receives the

support it deserves. I know that in rural areas there are some issues with regard to exceptions and speed limits and things like that, but I think those are issues that certainly can be dealt with.

Overall, the importance of this bill is to make sure that we continue to have road safety as an important priority for this province.

I want to congratulate the member on bringing this forward in order for us to be able to examine this bill and give it the kind of consideration it

deserves.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I wish to indicate my support for this legislation, which is in keeping with a number of pieces of

legislation and regulatory changes that have been made probably in the past dozen years. If there's one area where I think our society has advanced considerably, it is in the area of automotive

safety, of vehicular safety.

Automobile manufacturers have been compelled to make, and sometimes of their own volition have made, changes to the vehicles to make them safer. Laws have been

changed through the Highway Traffic Act to ensure that there's a greater degree of safety.

The member mentioned speaking to students and talking about problems for the students. When I have spoken to secondary school students, particularly those who

are about to begin to drive vehicles, are driving vehicles, or perhaps will be in a year or two, one of the things I mention to them is that legislators don't do things simply to be mean to

them.

The regulatory regime which now governs licensing for young people, for instance, is pretty onerous. Most of us in this House -- I suspect, looking around, all

of us -- had a pretty easy driver's test when we wanted to obtain our licence. It is much more difficult today.

There are two things I explain to students. One is the reason. I ask them, "What do you think the reason is that your insurance premiums are higher than you

believe they should be?" Second, "Why do you think we pass legislation such as tougher rules for being able to drive a vehicle?" Third, we look at a piece of legislation such as this. It is lots of

fun to ride in the back of that truck. It is a thrill. Why do we pass legislation like this? Is the member for Northumberland simply out to be mean to young people? Obviously not.

We have a family in the gallery today who has had a most tragic experience. There are other experiences of that kind. That is very often what prompts us as

legislators to take action. As I've explained to them, as soon as there's a wreck of a train where young people are racing a train and five people are killed -- and that's happened in some areas --

then there's a great demand for action, and there should be, to try to find some way to overcome that problem. We can't pass legislation which will overcome all of these problems, but this

legislation, when it goes to committee, is a piece of legislation which will deal with one aspect of a problem that exists out there.

People who have experienced a tragedy cannot bring those people back, or if people are badly injured, may not be able to repair those injuries for those

people. But what we can do is look at what has happened in the past and try to determine how we can improve that in the future. This legislation and the legislation for bus safety that my colleague

from Chatham-Kent Essex has brought before this House on a number of occasions are two pieces of legislation which have an opportunity to protect particularly young people -- people of all ages,

but particularly young people -- from the kind of tragedy that has prompted this piece of legislation.

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I also rise today to speak in favour of MPP Doug Galt's private member's bill, the Highway Traffic

Amendment Act. I believe this private member's bill addresses a key concern in many ridings, especially rural ridings across Ontario. Most people can see the dangers associated with people riding

in the back of a pickup truck while going down a road or a provincial highway, but it's still something that many young people continue to do, especially in the summer months. I am aware of a few

incidents where people have been thrown from the back of trucks coming home from the lake or from a bush party.

Also, as an MPP who represents a large number of farmers involved in labour-intensive agriculture -- in ginseng and tomatoes and tobacco and cucumbers -- I'm

pleased to see that, in the bill, a motor vehicle travelling less than 60 kilometres an hour and engaged in agricultural, horticultural or livestock-raising operations is exempt from this amendment

to the Highway Traffic Act. Farmers will want to be assured that this bill will not disrupt normal farm operations.

As a past president of the Norfolk Farm Safety Association, I realize the importance of safety around farms. So do farmers. Farmers in general are safe

operators and use common sense when they are moving farm labour around from, in many cases, one farm to another or one part of the field to another. Farmers often use flatbeds, cut-down pickup

trucks or pickup trucks themselves to take workers back and forth to the field. Not everyone can fit in the cab of a truck. Most of the time, farm labourers are transported in this fashion at very

slow speeds. They rarely travel on busy roadways. I know one could argue that cars should be used for this purpose. They seat more people. But they're not suitable for farm lanes, especially in wet

weather. I know from personal experience that diesel fuel, dust, mud, grease and hydraulic fluid do not go well on car upholstery.

As this bill moves forward, flexibility and discretion will be needed to recognize the concerns associated with these types of labour-intensive farming. A few

years back I worked with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, with Ken Kelly, to have changes made to the Highway Traffic Act with respect to certain farm vehicles -- for example, school buses

that have been cut back to carry round bales or pickups that have been converted to what are referred to as baggy trucks to haul tobacco. These vehicles can now be classified as implements of

husbandry. Today the Ministry of Transportation does tag these farm vehicles as implements of husbandry and it gives farmers the recognition they need under the Highway Traffic Act. These

implements of husbandry are required to have working lights, brakes, and good tires, and they operate at under 40 kilometres an hour.

Each year I, as do many of us, meet with hundreds of farmers. I meet with labour-intensive farmers -- potatoes, ginseng, apples, just to name a few. The topic

of farm safety and the transportation of farm workers usually comes up. Education of farmers and farm workers is essential in Ontario for prevention of these kinds of problems that may occur in

agriculture. Again, thanks to such organizations as the farm safety association, farm accidents are becoming fewer and far between.

Just to wrap up, I recognize the serious problem with respect to accidents and it relates to the recreational use of these vehicles. The evidence is in all of

our ridings. I clearly support MPP Galt's bill. I feel it will aid those who are not informed about the dangers of unsafe vehicle practices and, at the same time, should not penalize or disrupt

farm practices. For that reason, it has my wholehearted support. I recognize we have to maintain a balance between the recreational use of these kinds of trucks and valid farm and agricultural use

of these vehicles.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Northumberland has two minutes to respond.

Mr Galt: First, on behalf of the Mackey family and the Lawrence family, thank you very much for the support on both sides of the House. It's

reassuring, I'm sure, to them as well as to myself.

It was a good point that the member from Chatham-Kent Essex made, and I believe also the member from Timmins-James Bay, as to what kind of support there was

when we introduced it last December and it died on the order paper. The Minister of Transportation is in the House and he has given me his assurance; he would like to have been able to get here

earlier to have spoken on the bill, but he is certainly very supportive.

The reason it was introduced so late in the last session had to do with partisan politics and the appearance of trying to take advantage of somebody else's

grief. It was not my intent to try and capitalize on that, so consequently it was not introduced in September or October; rather, I waited a reasonable length of time. I'm very pleased that the

parents of those two young men are so supportive of what we're doing here.

It was interesting, the comments the member from Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey made about assuming it already was law. He's a lawyer. I have great respect for

him and his ability as a lawyer. We had quite a debate in the hallway here. He said my bill is useless; it's already in place. I just happened to have the assistant deputy minister of

transportation nearby, so I called him over and got them together. He soon realized that, lo and behold, this was not law in Ontario.

With just a little luck we can get this into committee, and maybe we can have this in place as law for the summer so that young people tempted to ride in the

box of a half-ton truck may not be so inclined if they know it's illegal.

On behalf of Bart and Jay, I would ask everyone to support this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: The time for debating this ballot item is completed.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ

ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now deal with ballot item number 7.

Mr Agostino has moved second reading of Bill 34,

An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act to increase the penalties for contraventions of the Act

and regulations.

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

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Mr Speaker, I'd ask consent of the House to refer this to the standing committee on general

government.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? No?

All in favour will please rise and remain standing while you're counted.

A majority is in favour; therefore the bill will be referred to the standing committee on general government.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(OUTSIDE RIDERS), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(PASSAGERS À L'EXTÉRIEUR

D'UN VÉHICULE)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now deal with ballot item number 8.

Mr Galt has moved second reading of Bill 33,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit persons from riding on the outside of a motor vehicle.

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

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to refer Bill 33 to the standing committee on general government.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

This completes all matters before the House this morning. We will reconvene at 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1200 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PUBLIC EDUCATION

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I rise today to talk about the condition of our schools in Hamilton and the priorities of this

government. At a time when schools across this province are starving for cash, for textbooks, for computers, this government believes it's more important to put half a billion dollars into private

schools in Ontario.

Let me tell you about Hamilton. The Hamilton board needs at least $17 million to repair leaky roofs and boilers, and deal with air quality. There are dozens of

are gone.

That is a brief synopsis of some of the realities we're facing in Hamilton and across this province. While we continue to beg the province for more money, for

smaller classrooms, for more computers, not to have to have fundraisers to buy textbooks, this government is intent on destroying public education in Ontario by their policies, by starving public

education, by ensuring that the private schools will flourish.

This is a priority for the Liberals: to fix public education. Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals believe that public education is the number one priority. We

stand for public education, we will fight for public education and we're going to continue to ensure every single day in this Legislature that we expose what this government's all about: a

government intent on destroying public education to benefit their friends in private education.

MISSING CHILDREN

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): I'm wearing a green ribbon today to acknowledge National Missing Children's Day, which falls on May

25. Throughout the month of May, Child Find Ontario is holding its 10th annual Green Ribbon of Hope campaign. For the last 16 years, Child Find Ontario has been helping to bring missing children

home.

Meanwhile, children, the future of our society, are still missing -- have run away, have been lost or have been abducted. Last year's numbers are quite

unfortunate: 20,000 of Canada's 60,000 missing children were from Ontario, enough to fill all the seats in SkyDome.

The positive news is that the hard work of over 1,000 volunteers throughout Ontario and the help from civic and corporate partners has aided in the location of

over 90% of missing children. Their 24-hour hotline, help from law enforcement, customs and immigration, and the community have all contributed enormously to this cause.

I congratulate Child Find Ontario on its successes and commend the organization for its tireless efforts in this cause. My hopes are that communities will

continue to work together and fight for lost children and the families from whom they are separated.

I take this time to ask for unanimous consent for MPPs to wear this ribbon in the Legislature today to show their acknowledgement of National Missing

Children's Day, which falls on May 25.

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

BEVERLY MASCOLL

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): Today we mourn the passing of Dr Beverly Mascoll, a great Canadian and a leader and an activist,

who succumbed to cancer at Sunnybrook hospital on Wednesday, May 16, 2001.

Bev Mascoll has touched the heart and soul of every community in the greater Toronto area and beyond. A Nova Scotian who moved to Toronto as a teenager, Bev

Mascoll started the Mascoll Beauty Supply Co in 1970, the largest supplier and distributor of black beauty products in Canada.

She had a strong commitment to public education and established the Beverly Mascoll Community Foundation in 1996, providing post-secondary education

scholarships, to promote the advancement of women and to assist in the development of youth.

She was the first chair of black Canadian studies at Dalhousie University. Her work and contribution to all of the various communities was recognized and

rewarded. She was appointed a member of the Order of Canada in 1998. In 1994 she was honoured with the Nova Scotia Black Cultural Centre Wall of Honour Award. After receiving an honorary doctorate

of law in 1999, she returned to university and graduated with a bachelor of arts degree last year. It's indicative of Bev's commitment to improve and educate both herself and all those around

her.

Bev was like a dove in flight: quiet, graceful and soaring to great heights. Those of us who knew her knew that notwithstanding her free spirit, an incredible

wingspan, the true wind beneath her wings was the quiet and steadying influence and unwavering support of her most avid supporter and loving husband, Emerson, to whom she was married for 37

years.

Bev had a profound influence on all those who came in contact with her. She leaves behind her loving husband, Emerson, her son, Eldon, and his fiancée,

Nicole, who will all miss her and her contribution to our great country.

VISITORS FROM MATTHEWS HALL

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I rise today to ask the House to recognize some visiting parliamentarians who are with us in the members' gallery

today. They are the 17 elected members of the student Parliament at Matthews Hall, a school in the great riding of London West. They are accompanied by teachers Harry MacLean and Jennifer McKay and

are in grades 3 to 8. They are here to learn more about their Ontario Legislature.

Matthews Hall was founded in 1918 by Kate Matthews. Its curriculum fosters appreciation for knowledge for its own sake and for its use in improving and

extending the student's world. The school is a coeducational institution for junior kindergarten to grade 8, and its purpose is to awaken students to their own possibilities as confident and caring

members of their community.

The school motto is "Debeo, Possum, Volo" which is Latin for "I must, I can, I will," a motto which applies as much to the work we do here as it does to the

work done at Matthews Hall.

I ask all members to join with me in welcoming our visitors from Matthews Hall.

NURSES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): Ontario nurses are at Queen's Park today to try and make the Harris government understand the reality

of the nursing shortage and their concerns about being able to provide quality patient care. These are the same nurses the Premier once said were as dispensable as hula hoops. These are the same

nurses who have been told by a Premier who wanted a 44% raise that 2% is too much for nurses. These are the same nurses who were told by the Minister of Finance that if they want to go to Alberta,

they can go.

Ontario nurses got the message from the Harris government six years ago. Hundreds of Ontario nurses have gone to the United States because they couldn't get a

full-time job here. Hundreds more have left the profession because they did not believe they could provide a quality of care to their patients.

Let's remember these are the same nurses who are working too much overtime in hospitals trying to maintain patient care. These are the same nurses who fear for

the physical safety of patients in nursing homes because the government doesn't fund a minimum level of nursing staff. These are the same nurses who provide care at home to keep people out of

hospitals and are paid less because this government wants home care to be cheap care.

For the sake of the patients in this province, it is time to hear these nurses when they say:

"Whereas the nurses of Ontario are seeking relief from heavy workloads which have contributed to unsafe conditions for patients and have increased the risk of

injuries to nurses; and

"Whereas there's a chronic nursing shortage in Ontario;

"Whereas the Ontario government has failed to live up to its commitment to provide safe, high-quality care for patients,

"We petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"We demand that the Ontario government take positive action to ensure that our communities have enough nursing staff to provide patients with the care they

need."

It is time to hear the nurses of this province.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just so the people in the galleries may know, unfortunately clapping isn't allowed as well. We're not even

allowed to do the clapping. We'd appreciate it if you would adhere to the rules.

STEVEN MELL

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): There is a young boy who lives in my riding of York North. His name is Steven Mell. He is 11 years old. He's

like any other regular kid. He swims for the Newmarket Stingrays, goes to school and likes to read.

However, young Steven was able to accomplish something that many adults have trouble attempting. Steven recently gained certification in Microsoft Office User

Specialist in Microsoft Word, an internationally recognized certification for Microsoft products. According to many business managers, this certification is a highly sought skill in today's

workforce.

The test is described as being very difficult, and many business people who take it fail, but not this student. Not only did Steven pass, but he obtained 98%.

This is quite the accomplishment for a boy of only 11.

The test specifically asks the taker to demonstrate proficiency working in text, working with paragraphs, documents, pictures and charts, using tables and

managing files. There are 30 questions that the candidate must answer in just 45 minutes.

Young Steven has not stopped here. He is now in the process of launching his first Web site. He has taught himself how to create Web pages by learning how to

use programs such as Dreamweaver.

Steven Mell is an extraordinary achiever whose interests will take him far. I congratulate him on his accomplishment.

WATER QUALITY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Our hearts go out to the residents of Walkerton, who a year ago began to experience an environmental

nightmare that included the deaths of seven people and serious illness for hundreds of others as a result of drinking the town's contaminated water. The testimony of a courageous Ministry of the

Environment drinking water specialist, Godfrey Jenkins, confirmed clearly and pointedly that the massive environment ministry staff cuts "severely hampered the ability of the remaining

professionals to do their job." With the highly regarded MOE laboratories closed by the Harris government and the ministry hampered by huge staff and funding cuts, the risk of a Walkerton type of

tragedy was dramatically increased.

What has happened since then? Of the hirings that have taken place, 68 temporary staff have been hired for Operation Clean Water, 67% of all new hires in

operations are temporary, and 72% of new senior officers hired are temporary. If Walkerton taught this government anything, it is that the ministry must have adequate staff and resources to do the

job of protecting groundwater. One year later, nothing substantive has been done to remedy the problems that caused seven deaths and thousands of illnesses.

Since the Harris government took office in 1995, over 50% of the ministry budget has been slashed. The Ministry of the Environment's first-ever budget in 1971

was $302 million, some $50 million more than the ministry now has 30 years later. Infrastructure funding is inadequate, the Brampton water and sewer employee training centre is closed and they've

done nothing about old wells that are causing contamination in the province.

NURSES

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): In the front lines of a hospital, when a "stat" is called or there's a "code critical," every single

nurse knows what to do. They know how to respond. They know how to be there for the patients. But who in this province is responding to the nurses when they're calling a code critical for the

front-line nursing personnel of this province? We have a critical shortage of nurses.

Let me just talk about the hospital sector for a moment. Nurses every day are working additional hours. They're working through their lunches, through their

breaks. They're not taking any time down to get their energy back to deal with vulnerable patients. On top of that, they're working hours of overtime; they're not refusing overtime. They are burnt

out. They are undervalued. They are underpaid.

What does this government do at a time when they profess to understand the need for more nurses, when they profess to put in place a solution to bring back

12,000 needed nurses to our hospital sector? What do they do? The Premier of this province says nurses who are in wage negotiations right now shouldn't expect a significant increase. The same

government that gave a lucrative increase to doctors, the same government that gave a lucrative increase to judges and to government lawyers, that offered 42% to their own MPPs, says nurses aren't

worth it. The finance minister said that if nurses want an agreement like in Alberta and want to leave and go to Alberta, so be it. Well, "so be it" is not good enough. Our health care needs our

nurses. We need our nurses. This government should listen.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I request unanimous consent -- we may have it in the House -- on the

occasion of the anniversary of the unfortunate events in Walkerton for representatives of the three political parties represented in the House to offer words on this occasion.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): My understanding was that we have unanimous consent to have a statement from each of the caucuses on the

anniversary of this tragedy. I'm just trying to clarify. I didn't think anybody would not want to do this. We've been talking about this for two weeks.

The Speaker: I can't be aware of any agreements. I was very careful to listen, and I did hear some noes.

The government House leader, maybe, for clarification.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, if I can shed some light upon this, I did call both the House

leaders' offices this morning to let them know that the MPP for the community, Mr Murdoch, felt very strongly that he wanted to ask for unanimous consent for a moment of silence, which would be

done after statements and responses, that based on his consultations with the community he felt that would be a more dignified way to mark this event today than to have political speeches.

The Speaker: The member for Niagara Centre on a point of order as well.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I understood there to have been an agreement that there would be unanimous consent obtained by this House

today. For the government to breach that agreement shows an outright fear of the issue of Walkerton, and I think this is something that people should be well aware of.

The Speaker: The Speaker can't be aware of any agreements. I simply asked. I was very careful to listen, and I did hear some noes,

unfortunately.

We'll put the time back on to start right from the beginning.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Mr Speaker, I have a related but different point of order: I want to ask for unanimous consent -- and

please hear me out -- to read a statement which was sent to me by the citizens of Walkerton. They asked me to read this on the record in the House today, on the assumption that there was going to

be unanimous consent for all-party statements. The citizens of Walkerton sent me a statement that they wanted read today on their behalf in this House. I ask for unanimous consent to do that.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to read that statement? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

EXCHANGE PROJECT

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): Last night, a delegation of 22 visitors arrived from the city of Baguio, the twin city of Vaughan, in the

Philippines. This has been part of a two-year exchange project between the York Catholic District School Board, specifically St Elizabeth Catholic High School in Thornhill, and the Filipino

Canadian Association of Vaughan.

Last year, 26 students, parents and teachers from St Elizabeth experienced life in Baguio City, Manila and a Missionary of the Poor in Naga City. In Baguio,

our students visited the Philippines Military Academy, the Balatoc and several other interesting sights for the Philippines. They had the chance to engage in dialogue with many students from local

high schools, universities and elementary schools. When the students from St Elizabeth visited the Missionary of the Poor in Naga City, they tended to the needs of the orphaned, the mentally ill

and those living in squalid conditions on garbage dumps. This trip helped to broaden our students' sense of responsibility toward others less fortunate and helped them to recognize how fortunate we

all are.

Today, the delegation from the Philippines continues their visit to Canada. They will be exposed to social, educational, political, cultural and spiritual life

in the city of Vaughan and the greater Toronto area.

Though I don't see them in the visitors' gallery at this moment, they will be here in the chamber during question period.

On behalf of the citizens of Thornhill and the members of our Legislature, I welcome our guests to our community and wish them a pleasant stay. May we continue

to learn from each other.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

PROTECTION ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA PROTECTION

DE LA MORAINE D'OAK RIDGES

Mr Hodgson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 55,

An Act to protect the Oak Ridges Moraine / Projet de loi 55, Loi visant à protéger la moraine d'Oak Ridges.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The minister for a short statement?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I'll do it after.

BROWNFIELDS STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES FRICHES CONTAMINÉES

Mr Hodgson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 56,

An Act to encourage the revitalization of contaminated land and to make other amendments relating to environmental matters / Projet de loi 56, Loi

visant à encourager la revitalisation des terrains contaminés et apportant d'autres modifications se rapportant à des questions environnementales.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'EFFICIENCE

DU GOUVERNEMENT

Mr Sterling moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 57,

An Act to promote government efficiency and to improve services to taxpayers by amending or repealing certain Acts / Projet de loi 57, Loi visant

à favoriser l'efficience du gouvernement et à améliorer les services aux contribuables en modifiant ou en abrogeant certaines lois.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): 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. Carried.

AMBULANCE SERVICES COLLECTIVE

BARGAINING ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

SUR LA NÉGOCIATION COLLECTIVE

DANS LES SERVICES D'AMBULANCE

Mr Stockwell moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 58,

An Act to ensure the provision of essential ambulance services in the event of a strike or lock-out of ambulance workers / Projet de loi 58, Loi

visant à assurer la fourniture des services d'ambulance essentiels dans l'éventualité d'une grève ou d'un lock-out de préposés aux services d'ambulance.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): 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.

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

The division bells rang from 1352 to 1357.

The Speaker: Would all the members kindly take their seats, please.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Cunningham, Dianne

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wood, Bob

The Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Agostino,