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

March 23, 2011

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2011-Mar-23 (PDF)

L096 - Wed 23 Mar 2011 / Mer 23 mar 2011

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 23 March 2011 Mercredi 23 mars 2011

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA SANTÉ

ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

TAXATION

TAXATION

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

NUCLEAR ENERGY

RED TAPE REDUCTION

COMPENSATION FOR

VICTIMS OF CRIME

STEEL INDUSTRY

FOREIGN-TRAINED PROFESSIONALS

SCHOOL TRUSTEES

HEALTH CARE

FOREST INDUSTRY

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

DISCLOSURE OF TOXINS

FINANCIAL LITERACY

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CTV OTTAWA

CTV OTTAWA

HYDRO RATES

ONTARIO EARLY YEARS CENTRES

NUCLEAR ENERGY

HEALTH CARE

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF PEACE

COMMUNITY LIVING YORK SOUTH

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

AGENCIES, BOARDS

AND COMMISSIONS

SUNSET REVIEW ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LE RÉEXAMEN

DE L’UTILITÉ DES ORGANISMES,

CONSEILS ET COMMISSIONS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

AMENDMENT ACT (STANDING

COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS

AND PRIVATE BILLS), 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L’ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

(COMITÉ PERMANENT DES

RÈGLEMENTS ET DES PROJETS

DE LOI D’INTÉRÊT PRIVÉ)

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

PETITIONS

RURAL SCHOOLS

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

ERIC DOWD

PROPERTY RIGHTS

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

DOG OWNERSHIP

AIR QUALITY

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

DOG OWNERSHIP

PARKINSON’S DISEASE

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CHRISTOPHER’S LAW (SEX OFFENDER

REGISTRY) AMENDMENT ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT

LA LOI CHRISTOPHER

SUR LE REGISTRE

DES DÉLINQUANTS SEXUELS

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning. Please remain standing for the Lord’s Prayer, followed by the non-denominational prayer.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA SANTÉ

ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 21, 2011, on the motion for second reading of Bill 160,

An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 with respect to occupational health and safety and other matters / Projet de loi 160, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la santé et la sécurité au travail et la Loi de 1997 sur la sécurité professionnelle et l’assurance contre les accidents du travail en ce qui concerne la santé et la sécurité au travail et d’autres questions.

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

M me France Gélinas: You had me a little bit worried there with questions and comments, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to add my voice to the debate on the Occupational Health and Safety Statute Law Amendment Act, Bill 160.

I am worried about some of what’s in this bill. Of course, not all of it is worrisome; some of it is things that I could support. But some, especially when it has to do with the prevention council and officer, leaves me very uncomfortable. Basically, what I’m worried about is the new structure. The way it will work is that the Ministry of Labour will be directly responsible for the prevention officer’s work, for the budget of his office and his council, and, ultimately, for what they do. I see this direct link as sometimes being something good, but sometimes being something bad.

I would much rather see a more arm’s-length type of a relationship for a prevention officer that would give the prevention officer the opportunity to go public, to not only report directly to the minister, which basically means that some of the recommendations the rest of us may never know, the rest of us may never see. He or she would report to the minister, and basically it would be the minister, with the help of his or her colleagues, who would decide what the rest of us see, what gets implemented, what gets worked upon and what gets buried. When it comes to health and safety, to me, this is not the way to go.

Transparency, accountability, the opportunity to see it all: This is what brings confidence into the system; this is what basically, ultimately, will lead to the best health and safety for all of the workers of Ontario.

At the end of the day, I think the direction of the bill is a direction we can all support. We all want everybody to come home safe after their shift; there’s no doubt about this. We all want our workers to work safely and go back to their families, friends and loved ones at the end of the workday, workweek, etc.

The direction is good. It’s how we get there. How do we maximize this? How do we make sure that if there are best practices learned, if there are lessons learned, those lessons are shared, even if they don’t really please whoever happens to be in government at the time, even if it doesn’t please whoever happens to be Minister of Labour at the time? This can only happen if you have some kind of arm’s-length relationship, if this officer has an opportunity to go public to show whatever report or whatever is learned—there should be an opportunity for all of us in this House to see it.

I can’t help but draw a comparison with the French language commissioner. We in the French community, and in all of Ontario, are very happy that the position of French Language Services Commissioner has been put in place. Mr. Boileau has done a fantastic job for the people of Ontario in doing investigations and bringing forward his reports. His relationship is very similar to what we’re about to create. He reports to the minister responsible for francophone affairs, but he often reports about issues that are outside her ministry, and then we sort of run into trouble.

I can give you the example where he did a special report on Peel-Halton French language services. This special report was well received. It gave concrete and achievable recommendations with deadlines, and his report was submitted to the minister. The report was made public; I was able to read it and so was everybody else. The problem became that the deadline was December 31, 2010, which has passed, and his recommendations were not acted upon and we did not see the action we should have seen. Frankly, there is very little I can do and very little anybody else, besides the minister in charge, can do.

We are about to set up the exact, same reporting relationship that we already know is troublesome in other ministries, if we talk about francophone affairs. Why would we want to set up something like this when experience has already shown us that it doesn’t work in the best interests of the people of Ontario?

I would like that changed. I want whatever is learned to be shared with everybody, whether the minister of the day agrees with it or not. The chief prevention officer should do the work pretty much the way that it is described in the bill, but I would suggest that he or she report back to this Legislative Assembly—that he or she report back to all of us—so that we know the work that has been done, the recommendations that have been written and the favoured path forward, and together we can ensure that health and safety are priorities and the recommendations are acted upon. Because at the end of the day, we all want the same thing: We want our workers to go home safely after their shift.

Why is it that we have a new bill in front of us that would choose to use a structure that has been tried before and been found to be less than perfect? We know there are better reporting mechanisms out there that would lead to better outcomes and to better quality health and safety at the end of the day.

It is troublesome, and it is something that I hope the government will look upon seriously. It’s something that is easily changed. We’re talking about changing a reporting relationship that brings transparency and accountability, and that strengthens the health and safety of everyone in Ontario. We are here to serve the people of Ontario.

Why not put forward bills that use best practices, that use the experience we have to make sure we end up with the best possible health and safety bill that could be and we move forward in a way that assures us, no matter which government is in power—because we know it will change over the years—no matter who is minister—because, again, we know they will change over the years.

Not everybody looks at health and safety in the same way. Every party represented in this House look at health and safety through a separate lens with different results at the end. The prevention council and the chief prevention officer will stay there. They will continue to do their work. They will become experts in the field and develop best practices.

But if those best practices have to be put through a minister and a party that have their own lens as to what health and safety should look like in this province, then we may, at the end of those filters, not end up with the ultimate health and safety for everyone in Ontario. I truly believe that every worker in Ontario should be protected by the best laws. They should be protected by the best structure that will lead to the best outcome, which is a safe worker who goes back to his or her family, friends and loved ones at the end of the day.

There are so many issues that are contentious when you talk about health and safety. I have people coming to my constituency office—and I’m sure you do too—about health and safety. When we look to occupational diseases in Ontario, a lot of changes have taken place. A lot of people are slowly but surely being successful in taking bits and pieces of protection away from our workers, and they do this by reinterpreting the wording of our laws.

Here in Ontario, we cannot take legal action against an employer for damages. What we do is put in a WSIB claim. If you’re a worker who works in a workplace that is covered by WSIB, the right to take legal action has been taken away, but in exchange for this, we have put into place WSIB, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. If a claim has been accepted and you become eligible for non-economic loss—known as NEL—or loss of earnings—known as LOE—or survivor benefits, if you pass away, or other expenses, all of this is what we traded away. You traded away the right to take legal action because WSIB gives you protection.

The problem is that the words we put into those laws are now being used against them to the point where you start to wonder what a worker’s life is worth. In some of the results we see, it’s really troublesome.

We have seen that the loss of earnings has really been looked into and has been analyzed with the worst possible outcome for workers. When the law was put forward, when this assembly—other people than me—voted on those laws, they were clear that if there was to be a loss of income because somebody was injured, then the worker should be compensated. But then you start to look at if somebody is so sick because of what has happened to him or her at work, and decides to take their pension because they have a physically demanding job and just can’t cope anymore, it won’t be deemed a loss of income, because pensions are not income; they’re earnings.

I know that lawyers love this stuff, and it allows them to take as much money away from the workers as possible, but at the end of the day it is wrong. If we don’t craft our bills in a way that really thinks about all of the possibilities, then we end up with things like this: We end up with lawyers arguing about the meanings of words to make sure that at the end of the day the workers don’t get their non-economic loss, they don’t get their loss of earnings, and sometimes the widow or widower doesn’t get their survivor’s benefits either.

I would very much like us to work together on this and to really think it through—to think it through as to, if we all agree that accountability and transparency is one of the basics for good-quality outcomes of any bills, then this bill needs to change. This bill needs to take into account the fact that the reporting relationship we have set up right now is troublesome and could end up with working against the best outcomes.

Je voulais mentionner que, bien que je sois en faveur de la direction générale de ce projet de loi qui cherche à améliorer les conditions des travailleurs face à la santé et la sécurité au travail, j’ai également, vraiment, des réservations sérieuses.

La première, c’est que la nouvelle position d’officier de prévention est une position qui va se rapporter directement au ministre du Travail. Ça veut dire que, peu importe la qualité de son investigation, peu importe la qualité du travail de cet officier et de son bureau, nous, à l’Assemblée, ne verrons jamais le résultat de son travail, à moins que la ou le ministre du Travail ne décide de le partager et de le rendre public.

Je raconte le parallèle parce que c’est ce qu’on est en train de mettre en place avec le nouveau projet de loi 160. Avec le nouveau projet de loi 160, on va créer une autre position équivalente à celle du commissaire, un officier qui va se rapporter directement au ministre du Travail.

Je donne cet exemple parce que le même processus est en train d’être établi avec le projet de loi 160, et c’est un processus, on le sait, qui peut bien fonctionner, mais il y en a de meilleurs. Pourquoi est-ce qu’on ne met pas tout de suite, en partant, un processus qui nous permet d’avoir la meilleure façon de procéder?

Ce qui se passe en ce moment pour les francophones de Peel et Halton, c’est une recommandation, vraiment, qui s’adresse à la ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. La ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée, à la dernière minute, juste avant Noël, a dit qu’il se passerait quelque chose, mais à une date plus tard. Ça, c’est enlever beaucoup de pouvoir.

C’est quelque chose qu’on est en train de vivre en ce moment en Ontario. Pourquoi est-ce qu’on est en train de mettre en place un autre projet de loi qui nous remet un rapport de liaison comme ça qui n’est pas le meilleur? On sait déjà que ça cause des problèmes dans d’autres ministères. Pourquoi est-ce qu’on est en train de mettre en place une structure quand on sait qu’il y a de meilleures structures qui existent et qui donnent de meilleurs résultats?

Nobody would argue that we all want health and safety laws in Ontario to be the best that they can. This bill needs to be changed if we want the best for our workers.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: I’m pleased to be able to comment for two minutes on the remarks that were made by the member from Nickel Belt.

I think she brought two excellent points, the first one being the reporting function. This bill is the result of a very detailed report called the Dean report, which was produced by an expert panel, nine people, and Mr. Tony Dean, who is a former Deputy Minister of Labour. They’ve recommended that the reporting function go to the Ministry of Labour. I think it’s important that that function be that way, because that makes the minister directly responsible to this House.

If someone from the opposition has an issue with what the chief prevention officer is doing or what the minister is doing or what the ministry is changing, that opportunity to keep them accountable is here in the House. Questions can be asked, and the opposition can question the Minister of Labour. So I think the reporting function is fine. It’s also very transparent that way.

The other point that I wanted to respond to was the point brought up regarding transparency. It’s quite clear in the Dean report that they wanted to achieve more transparency. The chief prevention officer has to get advice from his or her panel and then bring that to the minister. There’s no hiding of anything here. I think it’s very, very open.

The most important thing that this act and these changes achieve is system integration. The system will be more integrated this way, and the ministry will be able to function better. I think it’s a good thing.

I think she made very good comments—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. Questions and comments?

The member for Nickel Belt, you have two minutes to respond.

M me France Gélinas: I listened attentively to the member from Scarborough Southwest. We are fully aware of the Dean report, fully aware of who the membership was and the hard work that they put into this report and that the bill is based, in part, on a response to what was in the report.

I guess it’s how you define accountability and the reporting function. The reporting function to the minister: Yes, we can hold the minister accountable for what the minister chooses to share with us. But what goes on between an employee of a minister and the minister himself? This is not information that will be available to me. Only what the ministers decide to share and make public will be accountable to me. What I want is that this position will help toward more system integration and will develop best practices.

It’s not the position itself that I question; it’s how much of the work, the learning, the best practices that this new position and this office will provide. How much of this will be available to all of us? Remember I talked about the filter? This person will report back to his employer, which will be through the DM to the minister. The minister basically will either be transparent if he or she chooses to be, or may very well choose to not share anything with this House. It will be up to them. Only once information is shared can I then play my role, if I’m still here, of holding people accountable.

I think we both agree transparency is important. I think we could do better.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate?

Mr. Rick Johnson: I’m very pleased to stand up and enter this debate on the Occupational Health and Safety Statute Law Amendment Act, 2011, Bill 160.

We’re moving forward with changes to our health and safety system that make workplaces safer to help all Ontario workers come home safe at the end of the day. If these amendments are passed, they would benefit all Ontarians, employers and employees alike.

Employees would have enhanced safety training and a more effective reprisal complaint process. For example, when a worker is fired for reporting unsafe work conditions, there would be a venue for him or her to raise their issues.

The employers would benefit from a more efficient, streamlined prevention system and compliance assistance. The changes would help save lives and prevent injury among Ontarians, and they would help make workplaces safer and more productive. If passed, the amendments would:

—transfer prevention responsibilities from the WSIB to the Ministry of Labour;

—appoint a new chief prevention officer to better coordinate the prevention system;

—create a new prevention council with representatives from labour, employers and safety experts to advise the chief prevention officer and the minister;

—enable the Minister of Labour to set new training standards, revamp the reprisals process and develop codes of practice that help businesses with compliance.

Our approach would be fiscally neutral to the government and would not add employer WSIB premiums.

With the proposed amendments, our government is acting on its commitment to implement the recommendations of the expert panel on occupational health and safety chaired by Tony Dean and composed of representatives of labour, employers and academia. The expert panel consulted extensively across the province, received 400 responses from employer and worker groups, and held 50 meetings across the province. The panel’s report was based on the consensus of all members.

Consultations will continue with our stakeholders to implement recommendations such as mandatory awareness training for workers and supervisors, entry-level training for construction workers and training for high-hazard activities. An interim prevention council has already been established to get started on implementation and advice on the recruitment of the CPO. The minister, WSIB and health and safety associations will work together to ensure a smooth transition to the new system.

I’d like to go into some of the details of the proposed legislation. Under the proposed legislation, structural changes would provide for a new prevention organization within the Ministry of Labour. The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board’s prevention mandate would be transferred to the Ministry of Labour. A new chief prevention officer, or CPO, reporting to the Minister of Labour on strategic priorities would provide leadership on the prevention of workplace injury and occupational diseases. The Ministry of Labour would expand its involvement in workplace health and safety.

Like in all fields, whether it’s health, energy, being proactive in preventing accidents; things that you do to prevent things from happening in health care, for example, as well—these are all things that are proactive and ultimately designed to make people safe.

The ministry will also have oversight of the province’s health and safety associations, under the leadership of the chief prevention officer. This authority could be delegated only to the CPO.

A new prevention council with representatives from the worker and employer communities and health and safety experts would provide valuable input into the direction of the health and safety system with respect to preventing occupational injury and disease. The minister would have the authority to establish standards for health and safety training in order to enhance this training and ensure workers are properly trained. Workers, especially the most vulnerable workers, would have improved protections against reprisals for exercising their rights under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Now, this new prevention officer: This bill would provide that the Ministry of Labour have oversight of the province’s health and safety associations. These powers could be delegated to the chief prevention officer. The chief prevention officer, the CPO, would be responsible for establishing a provincial health and safety strategy. The CPO’s strategy would ensure that activities would be aligned all across the system’s partners. The CPO would directly report to and provide an annual report for the Minister of Labour on the statutory mandate and to the Deputy Minister of Labour on administrative public service matters.

A new prevention council, consisting of both employer and worker representatives, would be an important partner in setting the direction for the ministry’s prevention activities, and will work closely with the chief prevention officer. The prevention council would also advise the minister on the appointment of the new prevention officer and advise the CPO on the occupational health and safety strategies. Where the CPO contemplates significant changes to the occupational health and safety system, the prevention council chair would be asked to state to the minister whether he or she endorses that direction of change.

Health and safety training in workplaces with six to 19 employees: This bill would provide that all health and safety representatives in workplaces with six to 19 employees would be trained to carry out their health and safety duties. This provision would come into force on a date yet to be determined, to allow for sufficient time to develop the training standards and consult with small businesses and labour on its cost-effective implementation.

My wife works for a company in Ajax, Ontario, and as soon as word of this bill was announced coming forward, she was saying that there was quite a bit of uptake within their company, where new training methods were being brought forward, and also being brought forward was awareness of the issues within her company. So, already on a personal level, I’ve seen the impact of this bill, and it hasn’t even been passed yet.

There’s anti-reprisal legislation as well. Proposed amendments would allow the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the OLRB, to deal with workplace safety reprisal claims in a more timely manner. In addition, inspectors would be given the power to refer matters of workplace reprisals to the OLRB in certain circumstances, if the worker agrees.

Regulation-making authority: The proposed amendments include a regulation-making authority to allow the offices of the worker and employer adviser to, in the future, provide support to both workers and employers in reprisal cases. To ensure sufficient implementation time, these provisions would come into effect on a date to be determined.

Either of the co-chairs of a joint health and safety committee would be able to provide a recommendation to the employer on health and safety concerns, as opposed to both employer and labour co-chair needing to agree, as is currently the case.

What is the cost of the changes to the system? The proposed changes would be cost-neutral. The ministry is working with the WSIB to provide a transition plan, including the transfer of funds for prevention services to the Ministry of Labour. Employer programs, which fund the whole occupational health and safety system, should not go up as a result of the Ministry of Labour taking on the WSIB’s current prevention functions.

Comments were raised earlier about transparency and accountability. Bill 160 proposes to transfer responsibility for prevention of work-related injuries and illnesses from the WSIB to the ministry. Under the proposed model, what mechanisms would ensure accountability and transparency with respect to Ministry of Labour funding of prevention-related issues and services? Under the proposed model, Ministry of Labour funding of prevention-related initiatives and services, including the funding of the HSAs, would be subject to the same review and approval process as all provincial government expenditures.

First, the minister would have to seek approval from the treasury board and cabinet for prevention-related expenditures. Such spending would also be subject to scrutiny through the government’s expenditure estimates, in which ministries set out their spending requirements as part of the government’s annual formal request to the Legislature for approval of expenditures.

Estimates is an open, public and completely transparent government budgeting process, and the ultimate oversight of this process is through the provincial Legislature. Ministries can be asked to appear before the Standing Committee on Estimates to defend their proposed expenditures.

General accountability and transparency would also be assured through the public accounts of Ontario, which are documents, issued annually, setting out in detail all the ministry’s expenditures for the previous year. In addition, proposed requirements in Bill 160 for the minister to publish the chief prevention officer’s annual report would support accountability and transparency.

Consultation: Final recommendations were the result of deliberations and consensus among panel members, which was comprised of labour and employer representatives as well as academics. The legislative amendments being proposed as part of Bill 160 are the ministry’s legislative response to the report’s priority recommendations. The ministry will be working closely with stakeholders on the implementation of many of the recommendations.

For example, the new training requirement for health and safety, as proposed by Bill 160, such as requirements for health and safety representative training, extending regulations to the agricultural sector, mandatory entry-level training and training for high-hazard activities, will be developed in consultation with stakeholders.

Other recommendations, such as the development of more performance-based regulations and accompanying codes of practice, will also require extensive technical assessment and analysis, as well as industry input and consultation.

The testimony of inspectors in reprisal proceedings before the OLRB: This provision, if passed, would preserve the neutrality of Ministry of Labour inspectors by ensuring that they couldn’t be called as witnesses by one of the parties to a reprisal proceeding. It would also ensure that the reprisal proceedings would not be delayed unnecessarily by requests for inspectors to attend at hearings before the OLRB. Inspectors’ notes and other documents that may be relevant to a reprisal proceeding could still be provided with the consent of a director.

The expert advisory panel that put this report together, that the legislation is based on, was headed by Tony Dean. The panel received more than 400 responses in over 50 meetings with stakeholders from across the province. The expert panel consisted of the chair and nine safety panel experts from labour groups, employers and academic institutions. The panel included representatives from labour, employers and academia with workplace health and safety experience.

The expert advisory panel looked at a range of issues, including:

—the need for enhanced training, including basic health and safety awareness training;

—the impact of the underground economy on health and safety practices; and

—how existing legislation serves worker safety.

There are a number of things that have come up. This bill has cited safety concerns of people in the prevention of accidents. My son had a job a couple of summers ago working for the city of Kawartha Lakes, and part of the job was patching roads and working with hot asphalt. Every day that he went to work, we would always say to him, “Be careful of what you’re doing and don’t do anything that you’re not trained to do.” So we are very aware of the impact of accidents that have happened around this province.

I believe that many of the things in this legislation, as it comes forward, will really protect all the workers in this province, including our young people, who so often tragically end up being very severely injured or killed.

The key report recommendations—just to review this. Mandatory basic awareness training and education: requiring mandatory basic health and safety awareness training for all workers and supervisors, free of charge to employers, and improving integration of occupational health and safety training into school and educational programs.

Training for high-hazard work: identify and develop mandatory training requirements for high-hazard work, particularly construction work and work at heights.

Internal responsibility system: requiring mandatory training for workplace health and safety representatives.

Better protection for our vulnerable workers: to make sure that they’re protected and to make sure that a lot of the information goes out to them and that they’re better informed.

For the new chief prevention officer: We’re going to appoint a new chief prevention officer, reporting to the Ministry of Labour, to coordinate and align occupational health and safety requirements—and the fact that he will be accountable in reporting to the Legislature and the minister. There are many different things that are—the ability to dig into it and find out for the accountability.

I’m pleased that the stakeholders have been involved in this. Obviously, in any piece of legislation, it may not be perfect, but it’s a good step forward to ensure that our workers are carefully protected. Thanks, Speaker, for allowing me to take

part in this debate.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It’s a pleasure to follow the previous speaker, my colleague from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock. In speaking to Bill 160, I think there’s a lot of goodwill being expressed by people around this House, on all sides, on this issue. I sense that in the province of Ontario, between employers and employees as well, on this issue: that there’s very few people who are in favour of industrial accidents or are in favour of people being injured on the job. I think that goes without saying.

Also, like anything else in our society, you’ve got some bad actors; you’ve got companies that abuse the system. From time to time, I’m sure you have persons who abuse the system, like any other system.

What we’ve done as a government, as a result of some tragedies that didn’t need to happen, is we’ve taken a look at the current way of doing things around the province of Ontario. We’re suggesting we move towards a system that is based more on prevention than it is a reactionary system where things kick into place after the injury has taken place. So the emphasis on prevention in this whole initiative is something that’s of extreme interest to me and should be, I think, of extreme interest to those who are interested in this topic around the province of Ontario.

It’s a well-researched document we have before us. It comes from a well-respected individual. I think that person is respected by all parties in this House for his previous work within these halls and buildings. They went out and did what I thought was a very consultative process. They had 50 meetings and spoke to over 400 people—individuals or delegations—from both sides of the issue, and have put this before us here today for our consideration.

Ontario has got a good system when compared to other jurisdictions. That doesn’t mean that it can’t get better, and that shouldn’t mean that we don’t all want it to get better. Certainly, I think the focus on prevention is something that we all should take some heart in, and this bill and the amendments therein are worthy of support.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I’ll have an opportunity to speak to this legislation at greater length after my colleague from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock finishes off his two minutes, but I did want to enter the debate today. This bill emanates from a tragedy that occurred in this province due to the black market and people trying to find a job—in this case, in construction. Ultimately, they paid the dearest and most powerful price any person could pay, which is losing their life.

We in the Ontario PC caucus, and our colleague Randy Hillier, from I think the longest-named riding here—let me see what his riding name is: Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington. He’s worked through our caucus, and we’ve had quite the debate. We support Tony Dean’s panel. We believe that more needs to be done to encourage people to work in the legitimate market and not on the black market.

Having said that, in the Ontario PC caucus, we have grave concerns that this piece of legislation doesn’t do what Tony Dean’s panel had intended—or recommended, for that matter. That’s why we have serious concerns today with Bill 160, and that’s why we’ll continue to speak for other opportunities to increase safety training in Ontario, but also to eliminate that black market and make it more attractive for employees to find work in legitimate opportunities.

So I’d like to thank you, and I look forward to entering the debate for a longer period of time in a few moments.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

M me France Gélinas: I was interested in listening to the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock. I can see that, like all of us in this House, he is interested in moving the laws in Ontario to where workers would have more protection. He spoke about his son, who had taken on a physical job for one summer that had some risk.

I come from a community where most of the jobs are heavy industrial, high-risk jobs. I mean, on April 28 we will be celebrating the Day of Mourning. When we celebrate the Day of Mourning, this is a day to recognize everybody who has died on the job. It was started in Sudbury, by the way, by USW 6500, and it is now something that is recognized worldwide. I bring this forward because not all jobs are created equal. There is lots that can be done to bring forward ways to make even the most dangerous job safer.

My husband is a firefighter. There is a lot of danger in the job that he does, but there are also a lot of best practices that allow him to do his job safely. I look at all of the people who work in mines, and the people I represent in my riding, where a huge percentage of them work in the mine—heavy, industrial, very dangerous jobs. Health and safety have made a lot of those jobs a whole lot safer.

We all want the same thing. To do this, you need transparency; you need accountability; you need a way to hold people accountable. I have spoken before, and although I agree with most of what he said, I disagree with the reporting relationship. The reporting relationship has to be more transparent. Everybody should be able to see the reports that will be done by this new officer, and should be able to learn from the best practices—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Hon. John Gerretsen: May I first of all compliment everyone in the House on the excellent tone that has been set in this House, where there’s actually a good debate going on.

We’ve heard from the member from Nickel Belt, and now from the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, and all of the other comments. They have been very substantial and good comments. To my way of thinking, this is all about only one thing: greater transparency. It comes from a report that was put together by Tony Dean and his people. Tony Dean was not only an assistant Deputy Minister of Labour, but he was also the secretary of cabinet for four years, I think a man who is highly regarded on all sides of the House, an excellent public servant who served his province extremely well.

He has put together a very thoughtful report in order to place a greater highlight, as it were, on the safety concerns that we should all be concerned about in the workplace.

I would strongly recommend to this body, to the Legislative Assembly and to members on all sides, that this is a good step forward: (1) to make sure that our employees, the people who work for us on a day-to-day basis, are better protected; and (2) there’s much greater accountability by having this office located within the ministry, and the Minister of Labour being ultimately responsible in an accountable fashion and way to any questions that may arise in the House, here, rather than having it being done by an outside, independent agency.

This is a good step forward, and I truly believe that with the implementation of this we will create a safer workplace for all of the people of Ontario who work so hard to make this the great province that it is and will be in the future.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, you have up to two minutes.

Mr. Rick Johnson: I really appreciate the comments made by the members from Kingston and the Islands, Oakville, Nepean–Carleton and Nickel Belt.

As I said when I was speaking earlier, this is about safety for our workers in this province. Ultimately, we all want our workers in this province to come home safe at the end of the day. If they don’t come home safe at the end of the day, then it’s incumbent upon us in this House and in this province to make sure that the processes are in place so those people do come home and those problems are fixed. This will benefit all of the residents of Ontario, all of the employees in Ontario—the employers or the employees alike.

The fact that people will be able to come forward now and report on issues that they have when they have a concern and not have to fear reprisal of any sort will help save lives. The full prevention side of this is going to be so important, and the training that will go into our workers to make sure that they understand what they are dealing with when they go in to work at the end of the day.

The member from Nickel Belt spoke about her husband, a firefighter, and many of the people in her area are miners. My father was a firefighter, so I grew up in a house where we understood the risks that they had to go through every day. I have cousins and uncles who are miners in northern Manitoba—or were miners—and it was a constant discussion. They would come home with some horror stories in the 1960s and 1970s about what they were dealing with and the efforts that they made to improve that.

On the transparency side, as part of the transparency process, I agree that we need to come forward and make sure that those stories are told and brought forward, both when things are good and when things are bad.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It is my pleasure to address this legislation, Bill 160, on behalf of the Ontario PC caucus and our leader, Tim Hudak, and of course our critic, Randy Hillier. I think it’s really important, as we continue on the debate, to put what has happened in context.

On Christmas Day 2009, many of us in Ontario greeted very sad news—along with a very happy day—when we learned that four workers were killed in the city of Toronto and another grievously injured when the scaffolding that was supporting them during their work on Christmas Day collapsed. The workers were illegal immigrants, and the scaffolding had been improperly maintained.

As a result, the government launched a panel on worker safety. That panel was chaired by Tony Dean, a former secretary of cabinet, and the blue-ribbon panel consisted of academics, labour representatives and members of the industry. Almost a year later—and it took almost a year to study this tragedy and others—the panel came back with a series of recommendations in December 2010, just a few short months ago, to mark the near anniversary of that tragedy.

There were obviously political circumstances around that as well. The then Minister of Labour announced that legislation would be forthcoming, effectively on the same day deciding he would become a federal Liberal candidate, and shamelessly, I believe, used this legislation to further a political cause. But I will give credit where it’s due to Premier McGuinty for taking swift action on that matter.

Having said that, this bill falls far short of what we in the Ontario PC caucus believe needs to be done, namely to eradicate the black market and make it safer for illegal immigrants or anyone else who is working, to ensure that no one else has to die when they’re working.

The report by Tony Dean’s blue-ribbon panel focused on the black market in construction. The bill does nothing to prevent employers from entering the black market. Indeed, we have heard that through the HST more people are going underground, whether that is in the home renovation sector or in others across Ontario. This is a real challenge that we are facing in this province, particularly for people who have found themselves without a job, given the job losses we’ve seen in Ontario and other places across Canada.

The report offered significant steps to increase safety training in Ontario, and the bill does nothing to increase training.

In fact, we are actually concerned in this Legislature on the opposition side, given what we’ve seen in recent weeks—the attacks on our leader, the leader of the official opposition, by the Working Families Coalition—that this bill is going to create yet another bureaucratic committee that Pat Dillon can sit on. Earlier this week, I asked a question in the Legislature—and Pat Dillon, as many know, sits on the WSIB. He also sits on the college of trades appointments council secretariat and gets handsome per diems.

He works with Liberal insiders who have had an opportunity to pool their resources to skirt Ontario election laws to do one thing, and that’s to defeat Ontario PC candidates and to attack our leader, Tim Hudak. We believe that this bill would create another bureaucratic entity on which he will be able to have a seat and use his influence and potentially abuse taxpayer dollars.

While the bill contains numerous new obligations and regulations for industry, it has no similar requirements for labour. That is concerning. As with other recent Liberal bills, many of the substantive portions of the legislation are left for the regulations, and in this chamber we have said on numerous occasions that that is a significant problem.

You will recall July 1 of last year when, by regulation, over 900,000 items in Ontario were hit with an eco tax. That fee, or tax, never hit the floor of this Legislature, because it came by way of regulation. The question the Ontario PC caucus then has is, are there going to be new taxes or fees levied as a result of this legislation, that we will find out by way of regulation? It’s another question that we have, because this isn’t a fulsome bill. In fact, it’s another bill that puts forth a few ideas by the government, and that gives the Minister of Labour more oversight and ability to set standards but doesn’t specifically prescribe what those are.

The challenge before us, of course, is to say, can we trust this government to do a number of things? One is to eliminate the black market, when we’ve seen that they’ve grown it, given the HST. The second is that it not create another bureaucratic institution that their friends can sit on, namely Patrick Dillon. We can’t trust that that won’t happen. And finally, again, when you see that most of the substantive portions of this legislation are left to regulation, we then have to ask, are we expecting to be hit with another tax, or are we expecting to see what happened with that secret G20 security law, which was done behind the public’s back and outside of this Legislature?

With those three key variables, it’s very difficult to support what the government is doing, and it’s very difficult to applaud them for not going the full road of where Tony Dean’s panel came in. Again, I just want to reiterate that the Ontario PC caucus does support the findings of Tony Dean at the time—and I know every member of this Legislature shares in the grief and the sympathies for the families who did lose loved ones. We must remember in this chamber that we are here to protect the people of Ontario, whether they are children, women, new Canadians or workers. That is our job, and that’s why it’s important to have this debate today.

Having said that, Bill 160, I can safely say, does not safely allay any of our concerns with this current government.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome comments from my colleagues. I’d like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill. I’d like to urge all my colleagues to remember that the purpose of the Dean panel was to eradicate the black market in construction. I think it is important for all of us to remember that, as we continue the debate on this legislation.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

M me France Gélinas: It was interesting to listen to the take of the member regarding this bill. She certainly did a good historical overview as to how this came to be, following a tragedy, how the panel did its work and then how this legislation came to be.

I tend to agree with her that the problem of black market workers does exist in Ontario, and frankly, it seems to be thriving in every part of Ontario. This made me think a little bit about Monday night, when I had the pleasure to attend the J.S. Woodsworth Awards. The people who won the award were from Justicia for Migrant Workers. I would say it’s very similar to the case of what’s happening to workers on the black markets, who have very little, if any, health and safety protection. The people who won the J.S.

Woodsworth Award spoke very eloquently about what happens to migrant workers, how, here again, as to their health and safety, they are really treated like second-class citizens, and how the health and safety laws of this province are circumvented so they are left with very little protection.

This bill is brought forward so that we improve the health and safety of people in Ontario and we improve the education that will empower workers to protect themselves and to basically be able to use those rights. But all is for nothing if you work on the black market or you’re a migrant worker who is not respected.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: I just wanted to briefly comment on some of the remarks made by the member from Nepean–Carleton. I think she brought up some really excellent points.

The problem with this bill—it is a challenge because it amends two acts that presently exist: the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. These are two key acts being amended by this bill. When you go through the amendments here, you can you see that there are quite a few amendments in this bill, and if it becomes law, we’re going to see major changes in the way the Ontario health and safety act works in regard to certain things.

There are amendments in here regarding training—they’re on page 2 of the act. I won’t go through all of them, but this provides for training for workers. It’s clear in the act what those training systems are.

As far as the issue of whether it would be too bureaucratic or too heavy, a couple of remarks. First of all, this bill proposes a revenue-neutral system, so we’re not going to be creating a whole bunch of new positions and charging more money. It’s revenue-neutral, and that’s very important to know. The chief prevention officer is being created and the panel is being created, but it still remains revenue-neutral because there are changes to the other act, the WSIB act, that offset whatever expenses come on this side.

As far as the black market goes, again, the amendments in this bill to the Ontario health and safety act are quite substantial and there are sections in here that integrate the whole system. With the integration of this system, it will prevent the black market from increasing, because it simplifies the system. I think that’s a good thing.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O’Toole: I want to commend the member from our caucus who has spoken and commend her remarks. The member from Nepean–Carleton raises a number of issues that our leader, Tim Hudak, has suggested we give consideration to, and also the idea that has been raised here before that some organization can somehow be added to the existing organizations to ensure safety.

I’m wondering if this new occupational person—there may even be chance that it might be Pat Dillon; he seems to be taking a very active role. As the chief prevention officer, I’m not sure if he wouldn’t maybe have a bit of a conflict. I think we need someone that’s more broadly skilled to recognize the importance of workplaces and the existing structures of safety committees and advisory committees and the function of unions within those organizations. I think that’s very important. Some of them are non-union organizations; some of them are small business.

With all due respect to Tony Dean and the expert panel, I think there needs to be recognition of the good work that’s going on today. There are violators now, and I think the accident that has been referred to with the scaffolding around Christmastime—that, I believe, should have been enforced. Where were the existing laws to mandate compliance and inspection of workplaces? There’s a right to enter property and inspect and enforce compliance. I think it’s a bit of an excuse, actually: By creating more bureaucracy, we’re going to solve the problem.

I also respect that our leader, Mr. Hudak, said very clearly that he wants to work with small business to make our places safer and assure that the economy of Ontario and the families of Ontario are safe. Don’t ever misunderstand that. We don’t want to have more bureaucracy.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: The member from Nepean does raise some good questions around the underground economy and the illegal use of workers, and the parliamentary assistant assures us that there are measures within the bill that deal with that. I’m not quite sure it does. I worry about that because the enforcement mechanisms, in my mind, are not sufficiently strong, and the reprisal provisions are not adequate and/or strong enough to be able to deal with the questions that the member from Nepean raises.

But it will be interesting to see tomorrow whether the parliamentary assistant can help us with where exactly in the bill—he can show us—it deals with the issues of the illegal use of immigrants who are underground. I’m looking forward to that.

The other question I raise to the member from Nepean—because the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington raised it as well. I don’t know why you guys hate Dillon so much. You shouldn’t be showing these emotions so strongly for individuals. He probably thrives on your attention. I suggest that you just stop that, because I’m not sure what you gain from it.

You raise issues, as the member from Lanark, about how this government is going to put in Liberal people in the prevention council, but I worry about a hostile government putting in people who are hostile to workers. That’s something that worries me as well. I wonder whether you have any comments about a hostile minister, or potentially a hostile government, that can then fill their own prevention council with members who may not be so good to workers. That’s another worry of mine.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Member for Nepean–Carleton, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I do hope I acknowledge all of my colleagues. By my estimation, my colleagues from Scarborough Southwest, Durham and Trinity–Spadina offered their opinions in this debate, and I appreciate that. I particularly appreciate the parliamentary assistant coming to discuss this.

Look, I’m going to be very clear: We do have concerns, in the Ontario PC caucus, with this piece of legislation. It was drafted in response to a crisis, a tragedy that occurred on Christmas Day with four illegal immigrants working in the black market. The blue-ribbon panel that was created, that Tony Dean chaired, focused the report on the black market. This legislation does not do that, with all due respect to the government.

We have valid concerns. We believe that this bill could be better to eradicate the black market. I will stand here and defend that line, because I wholly believe, as my colleagues do as well, that the best way to protect workers is to ensure that they’re working in legitimate employment that does adhere to standards. It’s one thing to put standards on legitimate employers, which is important; however, if you’re not doing anything to eradicate how this occurred in the first place, which is the black market, we have a real challenge in Ontario.

Again, I’ll go back to one of the key issues that has driven people into the underground economy in Ontario recently: It’s the HST. We’ve heard that from the home renovation sector as well as others, and I would ask the government, in the coming days and weeks before we leave this place for an election, to address that challenge and to address the challenge that we all see as a result of this underground black market economy.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. Pursuant to standing order 8, this House will recess until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1010 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Rick Johnson: It’s a pleasure to introduce, in the gallery, Gene Lewis, executive director of the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I have a couple of things. First of all, in the public galleries, I’d like to welcome many representatives of the Ontario Recreation Vehicle Dealers Association and also reps of Camping in Ontario. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Also, I’d just like to acknowledge a member of the press gallery. Robert Benzie of the Toronto Star is 45 today.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I too want to join in wishing Rob Benzie a happy birthday—he’s not here yet, but he will be—and Antonella Artuso from the Sun, whose birthday was on Sunday.

And I think of interest to all members of the House: he’s not here yet, but my colleague and good friend Monte Kwinter turned 80 yesterday. Here he is.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’d like to recognize Al Robinson, who’s from the Ontario Recreation Vehicle Dealers Association. Welcome, Al, and keep up the good work.

Mr. Jeff Leal: I’m delighted to introduce two great residents from the riding of Peterborough who are in the members’ east gallery: Marie Calberry and Claire Cartman, who recently won a silent auction to have lunch with the MPP. I know they’re looking forward to the proceedings of question period this morning and to a fine lunch a little later this morning.

Mr. Mike Colle: I have some distinguished guests from one of the most beautiful cities in the world, Perugia, Italy. I would like to welcome Giorgio Faraglia and Christina Vescovi, and their hosts John Orsini and Rosa Orsini. Benvenuti a Toronto, Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to take this opportunity on behalf of page Rafeh Shahzad and the member from Brampton West to welcome Kausar Shahzad and Shahzad Hussain to the public gallery today. It’s a pleasure to have you here.

Also today we’d like to welcome a group of broadcast journalism students from Sheridan College who are seated in the press gallery. Sheridan is located in Oakville. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier. Premier, Ontario families are very concerned about the bloat and waste that is growing under the McGuinty government; that families are paying more and getting less in return. One of the areas where you’ve seen extraordinary bloat and waste is the growth in the size and cost of agencies, boards and commissions under your leadership. We have given you several examples where we believe, for example, the LHINs and the Ontario Power Authority together have taken half a billion dollars in waste and administration.

Premier, if you’re really committed to finding any kind of savings, will you follow the Ontario PC call to shut the doors on your wasteful bureaucracies like the LHINs and the OPA?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to, to a certain extent, welcome my honourable colleague to the party. Over a week ago, we announced that we were closing 14 Ontario agencies. Before that, we had announced we were going to merge Infrastructure Ontario and the Ontario Realty Corp., for an annual savings of $5 million.

My concern any time a member of the party opposite stands up and says they’re looking to cut things in order to save money is their record. In the past, when they looked to save money, they cut back on hospitals, they cut back on water inspectors, they cut back on meat inspectors and they cut back on nurses. Those are the kinds of concerns that we have and that we share with Ontarians when it comes to their language when it comes to cuts.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: The Premier claims that he has plans to close down 14 agencies. Premier, you added 14 regional health bureaucracies called the LHINs across this province, folks who don’t spend a single minute with patients. They don’t do any surgeries, they don’t even plug in an MRI, and they’ve taken $250 million out of front-line care. Our position is clear: We would shut the doors on the LHINs and put every penny into front-line health care for Ontario families instead.

Premier, you boast about a merger between the Ontario Realty Corp. and Infrastructure Ontario. Your so-called savings amount to 0.0002% of your record $18.7-billion debt. Are you so out of touch that you think that’s an achievement?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It’s hard to believe it, but my friend opposite is actually in favour of big government. He wants to take those decisions and the money that is now being distributed by LHINs throughout Ontario communities, and he wants to consolidate that in downtown Toronto. He wants to create big government.

I’m with Dr. Wilbert Keon—by the way, Senator Wilbert Keon—who said the following in response to this gentleman’s proposal: “I have no idea what his plan is and a general statement like that doesn’t make sense to me at all....

“I’m a card-carrying Conservative, but my love for health care transcends my political persuasions.”

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I think that shows how dramatically out of touch this Premier has become with the concerns of average, hard-working families. At a time they’re waiting far too long for emergency care, you embrace your wasteful bureaucracies, the LHINs, which should be closed down and the money put into front-line care.

Behind you, your Ontario energy minister has an unseemly love affair with the Ontario Power Authority, which stands as a tribute to McGuinty government waste, driving up the hydro bills. We would take a different course.

Premier, will you do the right thing? Will you listen to the PC Party recommendations, close the doors on the LHINs, shut down the OPA and pass on those savings to Ontario families instead?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I say I’m with Senator Keon when it comes to our position on LHINs.

I want to remind my honourable colleague that the LHINs are responsible for the distribution of some $22 billion. They are funding our hospitals, our long-term-care institutions and community care.

Beyond that, I think one of the things that Ontarians remain very interested in is, why is it that my honourable colleague opposite is not championing his commitment—his firm, solemn and unwavering commitment—to take $3 billion out of health care? That’s going to result in a loss of nurses, in a loss of doctors, in an increase in wait times and in a shortage of long-term-care beds. I encourage my honourable colleague to stop talking about his cuts to LHINs and to start talking about his cuts in health care generally—we’re talking to the tune of $3 billion.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: Premier, you have an extraordinary record of waste and mismanagement under your leadership. You continue to embrace your wasteful LHINs. You have a bizarre attachment to the Ontario Power Authority, which is driving up hydro bills. You have an unseemly embrace of your eco-tax-collecting agencies, which are pulling more money out of the pockets of Ontario families and delivering less in return. We would take a different approach.

Today, Premier, I am tabling a private member’s bill to review every agency, board and commission in this province, a sunset review to make them justify their existence. If they can’t, they would be shut down and the savings invested in front-line services and balancing the books.

Premier, will you please support this comprehensive, thorough approach to rooting out this kind of waste in the McGuinty government?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I say to my honourable colleague, “Welcome to the club.” Over a week ago, we announced the closure of 14 separate agencies—not a review; a specific commitment to shut down 14 separate agencies. Some time before that, we announced the merger of a couple of agencies that will save us some $5 million on an annual basis.

Again, my concern is what it is the honourable member is not talking about. Why won’t he talk about his plan to take $3 billion out of health care? Why does he not talk more and expand a bit more on his plan to shut down full-day kindergarten in the province of Ontario? That’s something we are very much wed to, absolutely committed to. We will see this through. Why is it they’re not talking about those kinds of cuts? Those are the kinds of things that Ontario families have a passionate concern about.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: The Premier just doesn’t get it. He’s patting himself on the back for what is equivalent to a 0.0002% in savings. He brags that he’s closing down 14 agencies. Premier, you added 14 regional health bureaucracies in LHINs alone. Your Ontario Power Authority is driving up hydro bills with extraordinary waste and incompetence.

Here’s what a PC government would do: put the onus on the agencies to prove their ongoing value to Ontario families who actually pay the bills. If it works, you keep it. If it’s broken and needs to be fixed, you fix it. But if it can’t justify its existence, it goes.

Premier, why won’t you support this very reasonable measure to root out the waste under the McGuinty government?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Let’s take the opportunity to continue to flesh out for Ontarians some of the Ontario Conservative Party plan at this point in time. They’re going to take $3 billion out of health care. We know that they’re going to eliminate full-day kindergarten in Ontario. We know that they don’t support clean energy, so they’re going to rip up the contracts which have resulted in thousands of jobs in so many Ontario communities when it comes to building, erecting and maintaining solar panels, wind turbines and the like.

We know that they intend to fire up our coal plants, which we made a commitment to eliminate here in the province of Ontario. We know that they are going to scrap the Smoke-Free Ontario Act.

In ensuing questions, I’ll take a bit more opportunity to flesh out their position since they’re somewhat reluctant to talk about it.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, you just don’t get what’s happening in homes across this province, conversations in coffee shops and on street corners. Families are sick and tired of paying more and more to the McGuinty government and getting less in return. Look at the long list of McGuinty waste: a billion dollars down the drain in the eHealth boondoggle; scandal after scandal after scandal at the lottery and gaming corporation; and an MPAC bureaucracy that is giving away iPods to its employees and getting basic assessments wrong, driving up taxes across this province.

Premier, are you that dramatically out of touch that you don’t know what is going on under your nose each and every day in the Ontario government?

Will you do the right thing and adopt our bill for a sunset review for all agencies, boards and commissions and, if they don’t justify their existence, close them down?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I’ve already welcomed my honourable colleague to the club when it comes to eliminating unnecessary agencies, boards and commissions. We’re doing it in a thoughtful and responsible way.

My honourable colleague, for example, is proposing that we sunset Cancer Care Ontario. That is something that we, on this side of the House, cannot support.

Again, I think what Ontarians continue to wait for is, at some point in time, that my honourable colleague and his party are going to move beyond the comfort and the quiet preserve of criticism, and that they’re actually going to put forward a substantive plan for Ontarians to consider. In the meantime, I’ll help Ontarians understand what it is, in fact, they’re proposing.

They want to take $3 billion out of health care. They want to shut down full-day kindergarten in the province of Ontario. They want to rip up our contracts for clean energy which will result in thousands of jobs. That’s just a glimmer, just a bit of a glimpse of what it is they in fact propose for Ontario families.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, Ontario’s finance minister criticized the federal budget for not doing enough for jobs, but the Prime Minister’s so-called jobs strategy of making life less affordable with an unfair HST while handing out billions of dollars in corporate tax giveaways that aren’t creating any jobs seems a lot like the Premier’s plan. Can the Premier explain the difference to us?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We will have the opportunity to table a budget next Tuesday which will address a range of opportunities for new jobs for Ontarians; which will build on our support of a strong public education system; which will provide training opportunities to more Ontarians and a brighter future for Ontarians. There’s a proper way to get back to balance while you create jobs and protect the vital public services that are so important to all Ontario families. I look forward to the leader’s support of those initiatives next week.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Jim Flaherty has praised Ontario for following his lead. One pundit noted that previous budgets from this government look like they were faxed from Ottawa. Now, the opposition in Ottawa has made it clear that it is not the time for another round of corporate tax giveaways. Does the Premier agree with the Prime Minister’s decision to cut corporate taxes or the position of his own party?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I don’t think the leader of the third party heard Mr. Flaherty’s comments this morning on CBC.

I’ll say this: According to Jack Mintz, our tax plan for jobs and growth will create 600,000 net new jobs in Ontario over the next 10 years.

Hon. Gerry Phillips: Hugh Mackenzie knows too.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: My colleague reminds me that Hugh Mackenzie and the Centre for Policy Alternatives have endorsed that tax plan as being the right plan for people of modest incomes because we’re cutting taxes and making life more affordable for Ontario’s most vulnerable citizens.

Finally, this government will protect the great strides we’ve made in public education and public health care. Those are the issues that families are concerned about. That’s what our budget will address as it creates jobs and lowers the deficit more and more each year.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: One opposition MP says: “Now is not the time for a $6-billion tax cut to our largest corporations that comes at the expense of families.” That quote comes from the MP for Ottawa South, David McGuinty. Can the Premier tell us whether he agrees with Mr. McGuinty?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: You know, the leader of the New Democratic Party proposes a job creation plan for Alberta; she proposes a job creation plan for Saskatchewan and British Columbia; she proposes a job creation plan for Indiana and for Illinois and for Ohio and Michigan. All she cares about is pushing jobs, like steelworker jobs, out of Hamilton; like auto jobs, out of Windsor and St. Catharines.

I have the greatest respect for the member for Ottawa South. I look forward to campaigning for him and his colleagues should there be a federal election. But make no mistake: This government will protect the vital gains we’ve made in public health care and public education as we eliminate the deficit and create a better future for our children and our grandchildren.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My second question is to the Premier as well. Families were looking for the Harper Conservatives to put their priorities first. Instead, they cut taxes for corporations that are shedding jobs. They didn’t get it. Next week, families will be looking to the McGuinty Liberals. Will the McGuinty Liberals put family budgets first, or will they follow the Harper Conservatives’ lead by putting corporate budgets first?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: First of all, I’m pleased to take the question from my honourable colleague, although I thought that reference to the MP for Ottawa South was a low blow. I was hoping that you were going to call her on that, Speaker.

I can say that our government has worked long and hard to ensure that we are sensitive to the issues that concern families right in their homes.

That’s why we’ve worked so hard to enhance the quality of education we deliver to all our children. We’ve got higher test scores, higher graduation rates and smaller classes. We’ve made spaces for 200,000 more young people in our post-secondary institutions.

We’ve also invested heavily in health care. We’ve got our wait times down. There are thousands more nurses and doctors. We’ve got family health teams.

We have never lost sight of those fundamental concerns of families, especially when it comes to those public services they rely on: their schools and their health care.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The families that I’ve been meeting with across Ontario tell me that they’re stretched to the limit. Many have been forced to take on new jobs that pay a lot less. Many haven’t seen their wages go up in years. All have seen the cost of living skyrocketing. There’s no wonder that people like Eve Corves say, “We just cannot seem to get a break.”

Will the Premier give people like Ms. Corves a break in next week’s budget?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’ll remind my honourable colleague about some of the things that we’ve done, and I think she can draw some optimism from our record.

We’ve increased the minimum wage seven times; she may not recall, but it had been frozen for many, many years. We increased it seven times. We increased social assistance seven times. We created the Ontario child benefit. It started at $600 per child. It’s now up to $1,100 per child. It’s benefiting 1.3 million children who are growing up in struggling families—600,000 families, in fact.

The average Ontario family this year is receiving a $355 income tax cut. They’ll continue to get that every year going forward. The Minister of Finance, through our policy, has also taken thousands of our lowest-income earners off the tax rolls entirely.

Again, I would argue to my honourable colleague opposite that we are, in fact, keeping the needs of our families front and centre at all times.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’m talking about the fact that families are feeling the financial squeeze these days. I’m talking about families like Dana Moore’s. Dana writes, “My oil bill at this time last year was averaging around $500 a month. I just received my monthly oil bill, and it was $743.”

This government has a choice. They can side with families like Dana’s and put family budgets first, or they can side with Prime Minister Harper and offer billions of dollars in tax giveaways to banks and insurance companies that actually shed 25,000 jobs this past year.

Whose side is the Premier on? Who’s he going to side with?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I wish the world were as simple as my honourable colleague describes it to be: “You’ve got to decide whether you’re on the side of our businesses, which generate our jobs, or on the side of our families and their public services.” The fact of the matter is, we think that we’ve got to be on both sides. We think we’ve got to bring a balanced approach. That’s why, at the same time as we are reducing the tax burden on our businesses, we’ve also reduced the tax burden on our families.

At the same time, we continue to find ways to invest in those services that families have got to be able to count on, like their schools, like their health care, like their environmental protection. Those are the kinds of things that we have never once lost sight of as a government.

While we are, in fact, reducing—again, to repeat—the tax burden on our businesses in order to ensure that they can compete in a very competitive global economy, we are also finding ways to provide financial supports to those families and enhance the quality of their public services.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr. Norm Miller: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Minister, two weeks ago you announced that the agency review you began in December was complete, after 13 agencies were trimmed and a little over $5 million was recovered. It was as if you unfurled a banner that read “Mission Accomplished,” when you said, “We’ve gone beyond the goal we set.”

How will you spend the $5 million your review netted? Will you put all of it against the $18.7-billion deficit, or will you pump it back into the agencies that survived your review, or return it all to the pockets of Ontario families who struggle to pay for agencies they no longer need?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: It’s interesting to learn today that the Conservatives are actually considering sunsetting Cancer Care Ontario.

What the member opposite and the leader of his party don’t recognize is that 15 of the largest agencies spend 90% of the money that’s spent by all agencies. So yes, indeed, we did take some initial steps, and I can assure you that, as we move forward, we will do more. We have a plan to balance the budget, a plan that’s clear and laid out. We have yet to see a plan from that party, and we know why: because they’re going to take $3 billion out of health care. They are going to shut down full-day learning. They want to rip up every contract with farmers who are producing clean, renewable energy.

That’s their plan; our plan’s very different. We’re going to protect education and health care as we build a better future for our children.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Norm Miller: Minister, your spending is what is putting education and health care at risk.

Premier McGuinty has a spending problem that won’t be solved by merging two bloated agencies like Infrastructure Ontario and the Ontario Realty Corp. into one mega-bloated agency. You haven’t taken effective action, so the Ontario PC leader is bringing forward sunset review legislation that looks seriously at agencies and what they’re spending. If this legislation had been in place, scandals at eHealth and at the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. could have been avoided or caught early.

Minister, why won’t you commit to adopting our measures that will root out waste in the McGuinty government?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Their idea of waste is hospital beds in emergency rooms. Their idea of waste is nurses. I’ll remind you that that government compared our nurses to hula-hoop workers. Their idea of waste is full-day learning. They are going to get rid of that.

They have no plan, no idea. We won’t support that bill. Why? Because what they did when they were in office was, they deliberately exempted Hydro One and OPG even from freedom of information—which we did, and what did we find when we opened the doors and we opened the window to accountability? We found a yacht owned by Hydro One; we found an Air Canada Centre box; we found 18 months of missing expense records for the chair of that; we found untendered contracts with senior Tories.

We changed that. We’re building better education and health care, protecting them from people like that—

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

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Minister of Energy. As the minister knows, hearings are under way on a proposed new nuclear plant at Darlington. Presenters are supposed to answer questions from other interveners, but in January, Ministry of Energy ADM Rick Jennings negotiated a special agreement with the panel, allowing Ontario government presenters to refuse to answer questions.

Why is the government undermining the panel process on the proposed Darlington plant?

Hon. Brad Duguid: That question is absolutely ridiculous. I suggest that the member read that letter carefully, because the letter says no such thing.

Rick Jennings will be there as the assistant deputy minister of the Ministry of Energy. He’ll be there to respond to any questions that need to be responded to. This is an important issue, and it’s very important that he is there. He’ll be following the process that is put in place right now by the federal panel out in Courtice.

We look forward to following that process. It’s an important process. It’s important that Ontarians have their say. It’s important that we hear what Ontarians in other groups across the province, whether they agree with the project or not, have to say. We’re very confident that it will be a thorough process. My federal colleagues have assured me of that. They’ve responded positively to our request to ensure that it is indeed a very thorough process.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, I know that you enforce the rules on unparliamentary language, so I will limit my comments in response to that non-answer.

Yesterday, that minister told the media, “We’re open to responding to any questions that may come up. It’s just a case of working with the process that they have in place.” But the truth is, the Ministry of Energy has sought to change the panel process and secure a special right to refuse to answer questions.

Why does the minister tell reporters that he will answer questions when he won’t?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Once again, the member is simply wrong. It’s simply not the case. We’re pleased to answer whatever questions come up in the hearings. Indeed, Mr. Jennings will be there, and he’ll be there to respond to questions in keeping with the process that is in place under the federal environmental assessment process, the highest level of environmental process in the land. It’s very important that the ADM is there to respond to those questions. He’ll be there.

What the NDP should also take note of on this issue is their reference early last week. The media covered this very well when they suggested that your efforts to exploit what’s going on in Japan right now in terms of trying to further your own political interest is simply distasteful.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock for a second. I would just remind the members that question period is a very important time in the parliamentary system and in a parliamentary day, but when we start to bring it to a level of some personal attacks on one another—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): That’s not helpful from somebody who’s not sitting in his seat, to the honourable member.

I’d just ask—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister, that’s not helpful either.

As I’m standing, I would like to deliver a message to all of you that I think is of importance to every member in this chamber, and that is, let’s be cognizant of some of the language that we use, and let’s not bring it down to a level, as an honourable member who’s not in his seat described it as being, in the “gutter.”

New question.

RED TAPE REDUCTION

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. There is a consensus that reducing red tape in Ontario is of key importance for businesses so that they can rightly focus their time and money on being competitive, creating jobs and contributing to our prosperity, something that I often hear from businesses in my riding of Ottawa Centre.

As all members are aware, the government introduced legislation to help Ontario businesses save time and money and, since then, I have been hearing positive feedback about the Open for Business initiative from our business community. Yet, the opposition who continually rage against red tape failed to follow through on their own words. They voted against the very act created to save businesses’ time and money by cutting red tape.

Would the Minister of Economic Development and Trade update this House about our Open for Business initiative and provide some tangible evidence to all members on the progress we have been making in reducing the regulatory and administrative burden in our economy?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I’m delighted to give a report, and we’ve got so much more information that couldn’t possibly fit in the time frame.

But our Open for Business initiative has hit another major milestone. In fact, we’re launching, this Monday, yet another round table with another sector, this one the restaurant, hotelier and service sector, where we’ll be working with them directly to sort out their priorities in what they see as a regulatory burden. So far, we have moved across 500 different business services available across 17 different ministries. We have hit some 70,000 regulations that have since been eliminated across all our ministries.

We have more work to do. What business has told us is, it’s not just about the number of regulations, but it’s the type of regulation, that it’s working with businesses directly in how we actually work with them, and changing those processes means more to them than just—

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

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: With these types of results, I’m puzzled that the official opposition still voted against this bill.

As you know, Ottawa is a technology hub, and we are very proud of the innovative and important work the sector does and the immense contribution it makes to our regional economy. I understand that the medical technology sector, which forms a key part of the Ottawa technology cluster, is one of the industries that the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade has targeted as part of its business sector strategy under the Open for Business initiative.

Could the Minister of Economic Development and Trade provide more examples of how this government’s Open for Business initiative is enhancing the ability of key sectors like this one to grow and prosper, to the benefit of my community and communities across the province?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: We do have a number of examples. For example, we have one telephone number now for business, for municipal, provincial and federal services that are available to business—all through one line.

This particular member for Ottawa Centre, who follows the medical technology community specifically, knows that in this example this sector is thrilled with the work of Open for Business.

By way of example, Ontario is now the leading jurisdiction in establishing a method of assessing technologies that will shift the evaluation of medical devices upstream so the results of the assessments are determined pre-market. This doesn’t happen anywhere. Now these companies are saying, “We wish that every province would do what Ontario is doing,” a direct result of the Open for Business initiative.

We’re delighted that the member from Ottawa Centre is a huge proponent of this work, a huge proponent of the industry that makes up such a big part of the Ottawa business community.

COMPENSATION FOR

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: My question is to the Premier. The McGuinty government has asked the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for an opinion on how to give relief to parents who were denied support because they hadn’t witnessed the murder of their child. In other words, you’re asking the board to reconsider the opinions the Ombudsman gave you in 2006 and that the Honourable Roy McMurtry gave you in 2008.

Yesterday, the Acting Premier was asked for a timeline for action. Ignoring the question, he talked about increases to the victims’ funds that parents of murdered children are not allowed to access.

I’ll ask you, Premier: What is the timeline for when your broken victims-of-crime system will be fixed for parents of murdered children?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Attorney General.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I was up in Timmins with NAN yesterday, so I could have probably better answered the question, and I will give the same answer that we’ve given, which is that we’ve said we’re going to fix this. We’ve said we are going to fix it as quickly as possible. We’ve asked the CICB for some advice on different rules of procedure and possible legislative changes and we’re taking a look at some other options as well to fix it as quickly as possible. I think the member, when he asked the question, forgot to mention that we are investing more than any previous government in history in victim services in the various forms—

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

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: That’s the exact same answer that the Acting Premier gave yesterday. Your answer was no better than his and you didn’t like his.

It’s no mystery what’s broken and how to fix the program. The Ontario PC leader has put forward a plan of action that will give parents relief. In contrast, Premier McGuinty dithers and puts forward more process and excuses, which we’ve just heard. You won’t take action; the Ontario PC caucus has.

Tomorrow, the justice policy committee will debate an Ontario PC motion to investigate the $31-million surplus in the victims’ justice fund and why you’re not adopting our three-point plan to release funds to victims.

Will the McGuinty government support our motion and expedite relief to the parents of murdered children? Will you do that tomorrow?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Both the Premier and I have said we are going to expedite the resolution to this.

I’m very pleased to hear that the committee is going to take a look at this because when the Tories left office they had a $77-million surplus in the victims’ justice fund. The amount that they referred to that we had was $31 million. But of the $31 million, there’s a contingency, and $3 million that’s unallocated. All the rest is allocated to programs that are under way and it’s already all committed for victims.

We’re going to sort this out very quickly, within a matter of days or weeks. The member should know that. But I’m quite happy if we get into a comparison between their record and—

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

STEEL INDUSTRY

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Premier. Newspapers are reporting that US Steel is ravaging the Hamilton economy yet again. It’s planning to move millions of dollars worth of metallurgical coal from the former Stelco plant. This, at a time when their CEO John Surma’s salary rose to $8.3 million. Does the Premier really support this coal being processed outside of Hamilton?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: First of all, we want to say that we actively work with Hamilton on a regular basis. We recognize the challenge that Hamilton and region has been under because of the pressure of having so many US Steel workers who have not been working. It’s been very detrimental to the community, and we do everything we can to be supportive. Let me say that first.

Second, there is a lot of information that we are not aware of, in terms of resources moving in and moving out, whether they’re moving to the Nanticoke plant or from that site or across—we don’t know. We don’t want to respond to questions where we simply don’t know what the facts are about what the company is doing on-site. What is important is that on the last visit that I made to Hamilton, I met with people. I met with people representing the steelworkers. I have historically met with people representing the company as well. We constantly stay in touch to see if there is any role that the provincial government can play in resolving a dispute—

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

Mr. Paul Miller: Local 1005 agreed to the production of coke at the Hamilton plant to preserve the coke-making battery. If the ovens are turned off, it could be devastating to the whole operation. This coke is being produced by non-unionized salaried workers. The company’s actions to move the coal out of Hamilton is another slap in the face of the co-operative union workers and those who’ve been locked out since November 7. The federal government, together with the Ontario government, could pass legislation to restart Hamilton Works under a stand-pat collective agreement.

Why won’t this government get tough on job-destroying foreign companies like US Steel and force them to restart the Hamilton Works?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think the member opposite knows that there are a number of items under federal jurisdiction that the federal government—actually, to their credit—have made significant moves on, and US Steel is dealing with that in court. Let me say that just last week, the local members, the local MPPs, did meet—both the member from Hamilton Mountain and from Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale—with the US Steel workers.

Again, we are in a position to do everything we can to see that those workers go back to work, and we are constantly offering that support to them, whether that’s mediation—what other kind of intervention can we provide? What’s important for Hamilton is that the balance of the work of this government is to put more investment in Hamilton—groups like Max Aicher, a new steel company, taking a US Steel mill and reopening it and hiring hundreds of steelworkers. That is the work that we’re doing to support a great city like Hamilton, and we will continue to do more.

FOREIGN-TRAINED PROFESSIONALS

Mr. Phil McNeely: My question is for the Attorney General. As the world emerges from extremely challenging economic times, we must re-examine how we do things and explore new and innovative ideas to help us emerge stronger and more prosperous. My constituents are heartened to hear that the McGuinty government has a plan to not only weather these difficult times but to put Ontario on a stronger economic footing to benefit generations of Ontarians. Through the Open for Business plan, our government demonstrates its support for innovation and our commitment to deliver economic opportunities and growth to the people of the province.

As a professional engineer, I know that the Attorney General’s office is responsible for the Professional Engineers Act. Can the Attorney General please tell me what the government has done to eliminate unnecessary bureaucratic barriers and barriers to practice that foreign-trained engineers face to help revitalize Ontario’s economy?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: The member from Ottawa–Orléans, not only in his capacity as MPP but also with his background as a professional engineer, brings such good insight to this. We’ve worked very closely with my colleague the Minister of Economic Development and Trade through the Ontario Open for Business initiative to make for an open Ontario.

One of the things that was identified by my colleague is that foreign-trained engineers had to have either permanent residency or citizenship before they could start working here. This denied them the opportunity to work, and businesses were denied the opportunity of their expertise. Working with Kim Allen, the registrar of the engineers society, we have eliminated that barrier, making for stronger businesses, better access to talent and better access for our newcomers who come with the training to work right here in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Phil McNeely: Each year Ontario opens its doors to thousands of newcomers. These newcomers choose Ontario as their new home to create a better life for themselves and their families. Newcomers bring with them their skills, talents and expertise, which they hope can help them find a good job, but while many newcomers possess the skills they need and the will and desire to succeed, many of them find it difficult to enter the workforce.

Newcomers in my riding of Ottawa–Orléans have told me that the lack of Canadian work experience is often a barrier to finding meaningful employment in their profession. Can the minister tell newcomers in my riding and throughout Ontario what the government is doing to help internationally trained engineers to find work in their profession?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: To the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m proud to say that the McGuinty government has invested in more than 200 bridge training programs to help our newcomers succeed. Bridge training, as we all know, creates a bridge to employment by helping our newcomers get training and also get Canadian workplace experience so that they can get licensed or certified in their profession or trade.

Our government, for example, has worked with the Professional Engineers of Ontario to develop bridge training programs specifically tailored for our internationally trained engineers. We currently have nine active programs that are helping to put the skills of our newcomer engineers to work. I’m pleased to tell the Legislature that approximately one third of Ontario’s 73,000 licensed engineers were actually educated outside of Canada.

These programs work. They help our newcomers get good jobs to support themselves and their families. The McGuinty government will continue to invest in these bridge training programs.

SCHOOL TRUSTEES

Mr. Frank Klees: To the Minister of Education: Trustees elected to the York Region District School Board have been told that it’s inappropriate for them to meet in private with parents who want to discuss issues related to school board policy. Parents and trustees elected to represent them want to know whether this directive has come from the minister and, if so, how can the minister so blatantly undermine the role of an elected trustee?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: Certainly, I very much appreciate the role of locally elected trustees, having been one myself. I am also aware that the Education Act is very clear around those five conditions that enable boards to hold private sessions where the public is not able to participate. They are very specific. They are outlined in the Education Act. They were in the Education Act when you were in government. They remain there now.

We are absolutely committed as a government to ensure that school boards act within those legislated guidelines. If there are people in any community in Ontario who have a question about whether or not boards are conducting business appropriately in public, they should contact this office and we will definitely look into that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: These are parents from York region who simply want to meet with their trustee to talk about public school board issues. The director of education has in fact told trustees that they are not allowed to meet with parents in private to discuss these issues. They’re being told that a staff member must attend every meeting that trustees have with parents.

I would like to know: Since when is it inappropriate for duly elected trustees not to be allowed by the director of education to meet with parents in private? Will the minister stand in her place and tell us whether she believes it is appropriate and, if so, will she send a directive to this director and every other director who would undermine the role of trustees in this province?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I very much appreciate the question. It is an important one. Certainly, trustees are accountable to the people who elected them. They are not accountable to the school board administration when it comes to dealing with the people who elected them.

I would say that trustees do have a responsibility to the people who elected them; that there is nothing in the Education Act that would say that a trustee should not meet with their constituents. That is very clear. Nothing has changed with this government. In fact, we believe that locally elected boards are accountable to their communities, and the best way to do that is to meet with the people who elected them.

HEALTH CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Clayton Leveille was a healthy 21-year-old from St. Catharines on vacation with his girlfriend in Mexico last July. Like many Ontarians going on vacation, he had purchased health insurance in case something went wrong, but when it did and Clayton fell gravely ill, he was left stranded in Mexico because no hospital beds were available for him at home. It took seven weeks for a transfer back to Ontario. Sadly, after months of treatment, Clayton tragically passed away.

Now his family is left wondering whether a speedier transfer could in fact have helped him save his life. How could the Premier allow families to be left asking these kinds of questions?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Obviously, first and foremost, I know that all members join me in expressing my sympathy to his family at this time of their personal loss.

The best that I can say is that we work as hard as we can, through all of our health care providers, to ensure that if there is someone who finds themself in need outside the country, we move as quickly as we possibly can to have that person returned to an Ontario health setting like a hospital. I know that great efforts were made in this particular case.

I think I should also take the opportunity to remind Ontarians that when they’re travelling out of the country, we encourage them to obtain private travel insurance. OHIP only covers a limited number of services while travelling outside of the country.

We also find that we’ve got to work with the insurance companies in these cases as well to ensure that the person is brought back.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Sadly, the Leveille family is not the only one that’s having this kind of an experience. In February, the Toronto Star reported on a Woodbridge man stuck in St. Louis for 10 weeks, unable to secure a Toronto hospital bed. Our offices receive calls all too frequently from families facing this unacceptable situation. Ontarians want a reliable health care system that will take care of them if they fall sick, but today it seems that this government is abandoning those very patients.

What is the Premier going to do to assure families that they will never have to face this kind of heart-wrenching situation again?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know that the minister is making sure that we can draw whatever lessons that we possibly can from these particular circumstances and move as quickly as we can to bring people back who are in need of health care here.

I can tell you, and I know my honourable colleague would want to agree with us in this regard, that while there is always more work to be done when it comes to health care, we have made real and measurable progress. We have thousands more nurses, we have thousands more doctors, we have the shortest wait times in the country now, and we have the first nurse-practitioner-led clinics in North America—as I say, real, measurable progress. And 94% of Ontarians now have their own family doctor. We’ve come a long way from where we were in years past, but again, as I say, we’re always prepared to acknowledge that there is still more work to be done.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. Bill Mauro: My question is for the Minister of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry. In recent discussions on the legislation you have introduced for forest tenure modernization, the members opposite have made frequent mention of a flawed concern that increasing the role of markets to allocate and sell wood in Ontario is somehow a bad thing and that US companies will be taking profits away from Ontario. It’s my understanding that this tenure modernization initiative, which was asked for across the north, I might add, will actually help put Ontario’s wood back to work and continue to build a new forest economy for all of Ontario.

Would the minister please tell this House how this initiative is going to improve the forestry sector in northern Ontario and improve Ontario’s economy?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thanks to the member for the question. Certainly, at the core of our forest modernization legislation is a focus on bringing our forests and our people back to work. That’s one of the main reasons why our legislation is retaining

section 30 of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, an important

section which makes it clear that companies need to process and use Ontario’s wood within our jurisdictions, therefore protecting and stimulating the creation of more forestry jobs in Ontario.

May I say that this decision was certainly supported throughout our extensive consultations with Ontarians on the forestry sector priorities that are a very important part of this legislation? It was clear that people wanted change and improvements to the forestry sector, and to their credit, the people of Ontario also said they want change that is measured and cautious, while at the same time promoting job growth.

That’s what this legislation does for the forestry sector: It moves forward on revitalizing the sector but holds onto those important parts of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act that work and protect jobs in Ontario, such as

section 30.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Mauro: I thank the minister for the answer, and it brings us, actually, to another important point. With almost no wood leaving Ontario, it seems clear that the members opposite may find it helpful to brush up on some of their facts, particularly when there are businesses in Ontario that also depend on wood that comes from out of the province. Would they change the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, which many of them voted for, so that wood neither enters nor leaves Ontario, and therefore deny regular supplies of wood from out of province to mills such as Abitibi in Fort Frances, Domtar in Dryden or St. Marys Paper in Sault Ste. Marie?

Could the minister please inform us how the governsment values and stimulates jobs in Ontario’s forestry sector and how it protects forestry jobs from the ruin implicated by suggestions such as those by the members opposite?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: It’s a very good point. It was legislation brought forward by the New Democrats many years ago.

I think it’s important to point out that our legislation calls for new local forest management corporation pilots that will test the principles of our proposed model and, perhaps most importantly, will be led by directors who have local, regional and aboriginal growth and prosperity as their top priorities. What we’re really trying to do is to set up these LFMCs, as they’re called, to be led by those who will promote regional wood harvesting and processing so that Ontario’s wood can better benefit the families and the workers of our Ontario-wide forestry-dependent communities.

Ontario’s crown forests belong to the people of Ontario, and we want to make sure that Ontario receives the full benefit of this precious resource.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mr. Robert Bailey: My question is for the Premier. Premier, the government of Alberta has recently changed its journeyperson apprenticeship ratio of one journeyperson to two apprentices in the electrical trade. But here in Ontario, the minister and his College of Trades insist on maintaining Ontario’s antiquated and restrictive ratio of three journeypersons to one apprentice for the electrical trade, in spite of their promise in 2008 to improve access to trades for Ontarians. As a result, many young Ontarians across this province are unable to pursue challenging, rewarding careers in the electrical trade.

Ontario’s young skilled tradespeople are leaving our province to find training. Will the Premier immediately amend Ontario’s electrical apprenticeship ratio to one to one?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I wish that there was as much enthusiasm over there for the presentation of a plan of any kind at some point in time.

Let me tell you a little bit about the plan that we’ve had in place for apprenticeships in Ontario for some time now. First of all, I’m very proud to report that there are 120,000 apprentices being trained. That’s double what we had in 2003. We’ve also, for a number of good reasons, put in place our very first college for apprenticeships. Among other things, what we want to do is convey to our young people, particularly those moving towards the end of their high school careers, the real, viable and attractive options to be found in apprenticeships and in skilled trades in the province of Ontario.

We’re moving ahead with our plan for apprenticeships in Ontario. We’re making some progress, but there’s always more to be done.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert Bailey: I thought that the Premier was looking over his shoulder. I didn’t know if it was the minister or Pat Dillon he was looking for, but anyway.

Young Ontarians cannot wait for your minister to make the decision to allow apprentices to access qualified journeypersons. There is no valid reason for these restrictive ratios. Again, Ontario is the only province in Canada with a three to one ratio. All other provinces have lower ratios.

I have received countless letters from students in the electrical trade who cannot find journeymen to train under due to the restrictive apprenticeship ratios. Why at this time are you blocking access to training for young people when they need it most? Premier, as we emerge from this economic recession, why is your government forcing our young people to look for training and work in other provinces?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: A little bit of history always helps. Let’s take a look at what my honourable colleagues did when they served in government. They cut funding to apprenticeship and training programs by 73%. They offered no support whatsoever to businesses to hire and train apprentices. We put all kinds of supports in place.

We’re bringing a different approach. We’re celebrating apprenticeships in Ontario. We have a new College of Trades. They have a specific responsibility when it comes to establishing these kinds of ratios. We have confidence in our tradespeople, we have confidence in our college, and we have confidence in the people who sit in that college. We look forward to finding ways to continue to work with our tradespeople and our apprentices.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): New question. The member from Timmins–James Bay.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. We have a rotation within question period. The rotation has now moved to the NDP, and I would just ask the honourable minister and the honourable members over here within the Conservative caucus to give that opportunity to the MPP of the rotation. If you don’t like the answer, you know there are rules within the standing orders that you can call for a late show.

Let’s give the NDP the opportunity—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, perhaps you want to ask the question because you could do a better job.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): As I was reminded this morning, there are eight and a half weeks left in this session.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I don’t need help from the armchair Speaker from Renfrew.

New question.

DISCLOSURE OF TOXINS

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, a while back you appointed Mr. Ritter as the person who’s going to be in charge of the independent fact-finding panel set up by your ministry. It turns out that Mr. Ritter worked for the federal department that was responsible for the approval and the use of Agent Orange at the time he was working there. How independent can he be if he is in fact the very person who is responsible for the approval of Agent Orange in the first place?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I’m really pleased to have an opportunity to talk about Dr. Ritter because I haven’t been able to talk about his qualifications since March 11, when we first announced him leading the panel. This is an extraordinarily important issue for the people of Ontario. I want people to know how well qualified he is to lead this panel and look into the application of 2,4,5-T by Ontario ministries and agencies back in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and possibly the 1980s.

He holds a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Queen’s University, and he’s been a tenured professor of toxicology at the school of environmental sciences at the University of Guelph. Prior to his appointment at the University of Guelph, Dr. Ritter held various positions at Health Canada, including the director of the bureau of veterinary drugs, the chief of product safety, and the chief of the pesticides division. Since joining the University of Guelph, he has led the Canadian Network of Toxicology Centres and coordinated a national metals research network. He’s very well qualified for this position, and I look forward to his report.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Minister, this guy was in charge of the environmental health directorship at the time that Agent Orange was being used. I asked you the question. I don’t doubt that he’s qualified, that he went to all these schools and got all those degrees. That’s not the issue. The issue is, he was at the federal department that allowed the use of Agent Orange at the time, and my question to you is, why would you appoint somebody who clearly had a vested interest in the use of Agent Orange? Truly, this cannot be an independent individual who’s going to do the review.

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I think the member may be confused about the meaning of the word “independent,” so I just want to read into the record the Oxford Dictionary meaning of the word “independent.” It’s “free from outside control; not subject to another’s authority,” “self-governing,” “not belonging to or supported by a political party,” “capable of thinking or acting for oneself,” “not influenced by others.” It means somebody who’s “impartial.”

If the honourable member is still confused, he can come and see me after question period.

At the end of the day, researchers and people who do the kind of work that Dr. Ritter does are peer-reviewed. They have a responsibility to make sure that the facts and the information they bring forward are scientifically rigorous, that they can provide that level of information.

I have confidence in Dr. Ritter. We think he’s very well qualified. We’re extraordinarily lucky to have somebody of his calibre working on this project. This is very important to the people of Ontario, and I expect that his report will provide some answers and more—

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

FINANCIAL LITERACY

Ms. Helena Jaczek: My question is for the Minister of Education. Minister, constituents in my riding of Oak Ridges–Markham want to know that their children are being equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in the workforce of tomorrow. Parents in my riding want to know that this government is taking steps to ensure that their children receive the best education and come out as well-rounded individuals.

Specifically, kids need to understand how to manage their finances in the future. Minister, can I tell parents in my riding about the measures that this government is taking to better educate students about financial literacy?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I’m very happy to have the opportunity to talk about the fact that our government is always reviewing our curriculum to ensure that it’s providing students with the information they need. To that end, our government did establish a working group on financial literacy. It was co-chaired by Leeanna Pendergast and Tom Hamza, who is the president of the Investor Education Fund. They were asked to provide information and recommendations to the curriculum council about financial literacy in both the elementary and secondary panel.

The new financial literacy resources, tools and training are being developed as we speak, and almost $2 million in funding has been obtained from the Ontario Securities Commission and support from the Investor Education Fund.

This is very clearly a partnership with the private sector working with educators to ensure that students will have the financial literacy that they need to enable them to be successful when they leave our school system.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. The time for question period has ended.

A friendly reminder to members: Today, during routine proceedings, the House will pay tribute to the life and career of Eric Dowd, and I would encourage as many members as possible to be here in the chamber.

Following the tribute, starting at 4 p.m., there will be a meet-and-greet with the Dowd family in the Speaker’s apartment, and an invitation to all members, staff and members of the press gallery to join us as we commemorate our good friend Eric Dowd.

There being no deferred votes, this House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1137 to 1500.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Helena Jaczek: As I speak, we are being joined in the west members’ gallery by some visitors from Community Living York South. They are: Doug Chafe, Michael Piechota, Debbie Sakaguchi, Andrea Maccarone, Gajen Paramalingham, Adriano Curatolo, Jackie Watts, Lloyd Chafe, Cathy Johnston and Carmen Kosem. Please help me in welcoming them.

Mr. David Zimmer: It’s my pleasure to introduce some visitors from the United Nations Association in Canada here in the gallery: Larry Hebb, president of the United Nations Association in Canada; Janis Alton, Canadian Voice of Women for Peace; Dr. Douglas Alton, Physicians for Global Survival; Professor Helmut Burkhardt, Council on Global Issues; Adele Buckley, Canadian Pugwash Group; and Dianne Leggatt, IHTEC.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’d like to introduce another member of the recreational vehicle group that is here today. I’d encourage members to go to the reception this evening as well. I had time to meet today with Roland Goreski, who is well known in my area. I thank him for informing members of the two issues they’re speaking to the House about today.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CTV OTTAWA

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Peter Jennings, Rich Little, Sandra Oh and my favourite, Alanis Morissette—all recognized names by television audiences the world over. All these familiar names, I might add, got their start at CJOH in Ottawa, owned by the E.L. Bushnell Television Company. I am pleased to be joined today by my colleague from Ottawa Centre, Yasir Naqvi, to celebrate CJOH’s—now CTV Ottawa’s—50th anniversary in broadcasting.

I’d also like to thank the station for its numerous achievements and contributions to our community over the years, from one of my favourite childhood TV shows, You Can’t Do That on Television, to the nightly news broadcast by big names like Max Keeping, Carol Anne Meehan and Graham Richardson.

CTV Ottawa has been a staple in eastern Ontario homes for the past 50 years. Ever the family-oriented station, it was Max Keeping who ensured that the nightly news was kid-friendly. I can tell you that, as a parent, we all welcomed that throughout our region. The CHEO telethon and fundraisers for the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, as well as for many Kiwanis Clubs throughout our community, have proved that CTV Ottawa is more than just a local broadcaster; they are the bedrock of our community because of the community work that they do through their local charity work.

Whether it is our on-air personalities like Kimothy Walker, Leigh Chapple or J.J. Clarke, or those who a